# Opinions about Raise Dead, Resurrection, Reincarnation...



## Amazing Mumford (May 26, 2009)

OK, I would like to get a thread going with some opinions about how gaming groups handle the particular issue of bringing the dead back to life. If this topic has been extensively discussed recently, someone please direct to me to that thread-- I don't think this has been a recent topic.

I know there are many schools of thought on this topic, I will try to list what I think are the top three:

1) These spells are regular spells in the PH and should be able to be used whenever, i.e. _raise dead_ is a 5th-lvl cleric spell and as long as the components are there it shouldn't be any more difficult to cast than say _flame strike_ or _hallow_. Any cleric can pray for these spells, and provided the cost is covered any temple will cast the spells on any deceased character.

2) These spells are restricted and only used in dire emergencies or extreme/unusual situations, as most societies accept that death is a part of life, and bringing back the dead is defying the natural order of things.

3) Situational. For example a temple of a LG god wouldn't bring back a CE character, but usually would for a NG, LG, or LN character.

I know these three situations do not begin to cover all possibilities, I am just trying to use them as a starting point. Personally, in my campaign, I like to use an option somewhere between 2 and 3.

Here's my view: If clerics and temples went around bringing the dead back to life, then why are there dead people?? I clearly understand that the common person cannot afford this service, but what about nobles and royalty? Why, for example, is King Azoun IV dead in the Forgotten Realms? Surely there must be at least one cleric around who could raise him! I think that these 4 main spells (_raise dead_, _reincarnate_, _resurrection_, _true resurrection_) should only become available under unusual circumstances. I DM that the gods do not grant these particular powers unless there is an unusual exception, because of the sanctity of life and death. Also, in my campaign temples do not perform this service on non-faith members. Maybe, if there are _extreme unusual circumstances _might a high-level cleric of Lathander for example bring a good character back to life who doesn't necessarily worship Lathander-- but certainly not a neutral or evil one. I think gods expect their followers to die-- look at Valhalla, for example.

So this brings into play, what about the players? Of course I want them to have fun, and therein lies the dilemma. Say an encounter goes badly and half the party dies, and a PC really likes his character-- do I totally deny him/her any chance to bring the PC back? Would it even be "in-character" that the PC would want to be raised? Remember Sturm Brightblade from Dragonlance, who died honorably defending a castle against a blue dragon? I feel that if that were a PC, then in-character that would be an "acceptable" way to go, honor and glory and all. But what if that same player has a PC and rolls a "1" on a save or die trap on some door handle near the beginning of City of the Spider-Queen adventure, for example? And the PC has like a +12 Fort save? And what if a PC is a Druid, or Wu Jen-- might that PC not be able to be _raised_ or _resurrected_, but instead be only able to be _reincarnated_, because its more along the lines of the nature of the class?? Another reason I limit these spells is because if you can always be brought back to life, then why would you ever be afraid of dying? "Oh well, one of my party members will just slice off a ear/finger/whatever and bring it to the temple... ho hum..." If the fear of dying is there, I feel PC's tend to be a little more cautious, the battle has more tension, and victory is that much sweeter and much more of a relief! I tend to be pretty firm on the divine aspect, but there is always the arcane loopholes like _limited wish_ and _wish-- _arcane spells not "forbidden" by dieties but be careful how you word them! Of course due to the very high cost in gp and xp I tend not to have NPC wizards willingly throw these around...

Does this seem harsh? Fair or unfair? I know there are penalties with being brought back to life, like with _raise dead _you're down 1 level and at least 5,000 gp; is that an adequate enough "punishment"?

I am very curious to see how other groups handle this, and to see if everyone is pretty much at a consensus or across the board...


----------



## azhrei_fje (May 26, 2009)

I tailor the death-defying spells to the campaign and the players.

In my _Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil_ we've had 12 character deaths.  The first few were, of course, when the party was too low level to bring anyone back (they couldn't cast the spells themselves and they couldn't afford to pay an NPC).  After about 5-6 deaths and players moving on to new PCs, I decided that the discontinuity of the story line due to multiple hero changes was too much.

I cut the cost of all death-defying spell components in half.  And I used Andy Collins' rule on how being brought back to life caused a special negative level instead of a real level loss.

Of course, RttToEE is a "PC grinder" of the highest order.  Any PC who doesn't die at least once only got there because he ran away from _every_ encounter!  (Okay, it's not quite _that_ bad, but there's no doubt that it's tough.)

HTH.


----------



## aboyd (May 26, 2009)

I'm fine just letting the players cast those spells whenever they wish.  However, to get around the whole "why would anybody ever die" dilemma, I've made clerics rare.  Really rare.  As in, probably only 1 exists for any given temple.  Everyone else at the temple is an NPC Adept class.  Something small like a shrine wouldn't even have a cleric at all.  So in a town with 2 temples and 5 shrines, you'd expect only 2 clerics to exist.  That keeps them rare, busy, and expensive.


----------



## Vegepygmy (May 26, 2009)

Amazing Mumford said:


> 1) These spells are regular spells in the PH and should be able to be used whenever, i.e. _raise dead_ is a 5th-lvl cleric spell and as long as the components are there it shouldn't be any more difficult to cast than say _flame strike_ or _hallow_. Any cleric can pray for these spells, and provided the cost is covered any temple will cast the spells on any deceased character.
> 
> 3) Situational. For example a temple of a LG god wouldn't bring back a CE character, but usually would for a NG, LG, or LN character.



Combination of 1 and 3 for me.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 26, 2009)

Amazing Mumford said:


> Why, for example, is King Azoun IV dead in the Forgotten Realms? Surely there must be at least one cleric around who could raise him!



Exactly! The Forgotten Realms setting is internally inconsistent and has always been so. Either you don't care and use the setting anyway or you use a different setting.

Eberron, e.g. is one of the few settings that has been trying to offer a more realistic solution to this consistency problem.


----------



## Thanee (May 26, 2009)

Amazing Mumford said:


> Here's my view: If clerics and temples went around bringing the dead back to life, then why are there dead people?? I clearly understand that the common person cannot afford this service, but what about nobles and royalty? Why, for example, is King Azoun IV dead in the Forgotten Realms? Surely there must be at least one cleric around who could raise him!




Surely there is. But if the soul does not want to return, it won't, no matter what.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## irdeggman (May 26, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> Combination of 1 and 3 for me.




Pretty much the same for me.

It should be noted that clerics must have a code of conduct.

PHB pg 33


> Ex-Clerics
> A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god (generally by acting in ways opposed to the god’s alignment or purposes) loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description, page 201).




So it depends on what the god's code of conduct and purposes are.  Now if you run deity free clerics then things get real tricky here - but still there needs to be a central purpose for the cleric and guide to behavior.

For example if the cleric worships a god of war - then raising the dead is probably not within the deity's purposes since death is a part of war. 

If it is a god of nature - likewise, except that raising the dead would be considered unnatural.

Things like that matter, at least to me.

I know some people do not play games in that manner and instead focus more on mechanic- based play instead of role-playing basis. In that sort of game it makes no sense to try to insert role-playing limitations to actions.


----------



## Dyson Logos (May 26, 2009)

In our 3e campaign Raise Dead was moved up to take over the Resurrection spell slot, and Resurrection moved up further to take over the True Resurrection slot. That certainly reduced how often they were seen in play.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 26, 2009)

I tried using a nice rule from HoH: a resurrection requires a life to be given up in exchange for the one being resurrected; the spell kills a helpless victim (with at least as many HD as the resurrectee, to prevent 'flyswatter resurrections'). Obviously, this changed things a bit.


----------



## DarkelvenSFi (May 26, 2009)

I think the distinction here is that people still age.. I've always thought that the idea of resurrecting someone doesn't mean they suddenly get a new and young body; they get the old body back with the same life expectancy.

One difference I noticed between 2e and 3e=3.5e was that there aren't really any more elixers that reverse age (or none that I've seen; and I've not really looked either). Not sure how this is meant to change things... because people tend to go up many levels before aging one year.

And thinking about it some more, the reincarnate spell explains that it creates a new body for the soul. Would this then grant a person a new lifetime? Would the aging benefits and penalties apply?

Could a Druid that's about to die of old age, one who's reaped the benefits of old age (wis, int, cha) yet none of the penalties of old age (str, dex, con); due to his timeless body, be able to reincarnate into a new young form? Then age ever so gracefully again; obtaining still more benefits and no penalties for age?

I'd argue that unless there are some extenuating circumstances, the natural life expectancy of a player is it. Some extreme quest for some extra years of life would be needed before it was granted. But by that stage, I'd say that the characters would be bordering a demi-god status or similar... characters either die long before old age, or reach a level of power to make age no longer a problem.


----------



## OmniChaos (May 26, 2009)

Well personally its a case by case thing for me. I mean people die of old age in which case there is no point to bring them back. Some are killed in such a way that bring them back is to hard for some casters unless they are really powerful. Also not everyone is faithless so when some people die they end up going to the realm of their god in which case they wont or cant leave and so cant be pulled back to life by just a spell. I mean you could go to the gods plane and drag someone back from there but thats something else lol.

Also you have to look at the caster. Some gods have priest that are restricted in who they can bring back and for what reason. Also not all priest will just take money and bring someone back its dependent on their own way of thinking. They may want a favor or something else.

Put simple its never a easy thing to bring people back. Also depends on how you have things set up. But their is one thing about bring people back that I am unbending on. Never ever Reincarnate me because I have been stuck as a yes I joke you not roach. -.- I was not a happy roach I assure you.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (May 26, 2009)

I've worked up a variation on the 2e sphere system for my games, so the only clerics with access to _raise dead_ have to have moderate access to the Life sphere (which 2 gods grant), and to have access to _resurrection_ or _true resurrection_ you have to have major access to that sphere (which only 1 god grants).  The clerics of the latter god are quite happy to resurrect anyone and everyone, because their god is very anti-death, but there are many more gods with the Death sphere who have been whittling down the number of priests who can resurrect, and _keeping_ them dead.

If you manage to find one of the 19 or so clerics in the world who can _resurrect_ you, they'll happily _resurrect_ or _true resurrect_ you if you pay the component with no questions asked, but if you want that you have to look really hard.  In contrast, it's hard to keep someone dead at all if you don't have soul-binding magic and the person will accept a _raise dead_.


----------



## Dragonnety (May 26, 2009)

I am totally with you. I have "banned" these spells from the very begining. The DM who taught me D&D had banned them as well. And the reasons are those you mention. However.....House Rule : Characters of extreme power may sacrifice something great (extremely great) to ressurect someone (perhaps with the cost of his own life or more?). And of course you can always ressurect someone for the story. 

I donlt like it when I see "Staff of Ressurection, never leave your homes without it". Yes I have seen it. And it was ugly (at least for me).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (May 26, 2009)

I leave the spells in as they are, although I'm thinking of eliminating the level loss entirely.  IME, the players usually die for being heroic or sacrificing themselves for the sake of the party, not for being idiotic (although I guess some old school players would cal that idiotic...).  Bottom line, I don't like punishing players for that.  There's also the issue of plot continuity.  I HATE seeing characters get retired, and new ones coming in, it really wrecks not only the story, but also my familiarity with the party and how to challenge them.  If there were no "death penalty," but making a new character in place of one who died still cost a level, sticking to your old one would be a lot more appealing.

I'm considering switching to the power components houserule, though, and turning it into a quest to acquire the needed item to revive a PC.

I also heavily endorse spells like Revivify from spell compendium (by mentioning it, and by enforcing a party pool of money to buy scrolls of it, and other healing items), which must be cast immediately after "dying" (before the soul has completely left, according to the fluff), but instantly raise the person at no level loss and to fighting-capable hp.  To me, using spells like that makes it seem like the person never died.  You're not undoing the most powerful force of nature with a cheap magic trick.  You're rescuing him/her from the _brink_ of it.

As for Reicarnate, I hold to the ruling that it DOES hit "restart" on the life meter.  I like the idea of groups of ancient druids keeping themselves alive in various animal forms with it.  Most people don't like that, though.

As for previous threads, I have no search function, but there have been VERY long threads on this in the past.


----------



## Dragonnety (May 26, 2009)

A character should retire sometime. Why? Because he can't go forever, because he found what he really searched for, because it is just time, because the player wants to try something new and many many more reasons. 

Sacrifice. The greatest and most noble of deaths. If he can be ressurected the whole concept of self-sacrifice is gone. Then it is a discomfort. When the palyer knows that if he dies he WON'T come back, and yet, jumps to the bridge holding a necklace of fireballs ready to explode and wait for the enemy horde to blow everything up, then he is more than another character in a game. He is a true Hero that every player and character in my games will remember and aknowledge. And yes, I am proud to say that my player's are like that. 

Plus, death is not a punishment for being stupid. It is just what compels the players (and the DM) to be better at what they do and keep things interesting. If ressurect is like an overused chewing-gum then it is gonna be like "Ancient Red Dragon leading Orcs? Let's check it out, what's going to happen to us? Die? We'll get them next time, or next time or next time......etc"


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (May 26, 2009)

As oppossed to going after the same too powerful red dragon with entirely new groups of PCs ad nauseum, dying every time?  Sounds like a strawman to me.

Yes, the characters retire eventually.  It's called the end of the campaign.  Not that certain characters can't continue on in future campaigns, but it's a good time for it.  And I've seen plenty of characters retire or move on to other pursuits mid-campaign WITHOUT dying.  Using death as an impetus for character retirement is what seems artificial to me.

As far as sacrifice, my groups have had moments like that.  Deaths so amazingly heroic that they will live on forever in our memories.  In games that allowed raise dead spells.  And in a good portion of those cases, even with the availability of said magic, the player of the dead PC chose to not raise him, because he liked how the PC went out.  Some want the PC to come back, though.  If you think the regular raise dead spells are too lame for that, you could quest for a power component.  Or do it ancient Greek style and have a session where the PC frees himself from Hades.  Whatever.  But as for the standard rules on character revival, I'm glad it's nice and simple, with just a spell casting.  I always have the option of doing those more exotic things in my game, but if I don't feel like it, I have rules right there to do it the easy way (in terms of DM prep).


----------



## Dragonnety (May 26, 2009)

That backfired good. But it is not what I meant. The party should be careful with its moves. And yes escaping from the clutches of Hades is the epitome of heroic ressurection (Greek here), but if anyone can do it....it is just not impressive. It should be selective and ONLY in limited situations. 

Imagine a party devastated by the death of a dear companion to find out only days later that he escaped from Death's cold hand but he is being hunted by demons who want to drug him right back to the grave. EPIC! Now imagine "Oh Randall, welcome back we keeped your place, tell us how is Cerberus doing?".

Or don't you believe that there is a difference?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (May 26, 2009)

There's a difference.  I just have never been in a campaign with frequent PC death.  Most I've ever seen is 3 in a 8 month long game.  A few campaigns have had none at all.  So IME, a PC death is rare enough that such Hades-escaping wouldn't seem common.  But I guess for others, if PCs die often, it would look like that.

And I totally didn't notice your location!


----------



## Amazing Mumford (May 26, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I leave the spells in as they are, although I'm thinking of eliminating the level loss entirely. IME, the players usually die for being heroic or sacrificing themselves for the sake of the party, not for being idiotic (although I guess some old school players would cal that idiotic...). Bottom line, I don't like punishing players for that. There's also the issue of plot continuity. I HATE seeing characters get retired, and new ones coming in, it really wrecks not only the story, but also my familiarity with the party and how to challenge them. If there were no "death penalty," but making a new character in place of one who died still cost a level, sticking to your old one would be a lot more appealing.
> 
> I also heavily endorse spells like Revivify from spell compendium (by mentioning it, and by enforcing a party pool of money to buy scrolls of it, and other healing items), which must be cast immediately after "dying" (before the soul has completely left, according to the fluff), but instantly raise the person at no level loss and to fighting-capable hp. To me, using spells like that makes it seem like the person never died. You're not undoing the most powerful force of nature with a cheap magic trick. You're rescuing him/her from the _brink_ of it.




You do bring up a good point, Stream-- I know not all gaming groups are huge on this, but I am a fan of continuity as well. It's conducive to role-playing. And it does have the potential to ruin a campaign if 3/4 of the party dies halfway through a big adventure, now it's up to the survivors maybe to find new "recruits"... But it is more of a campaign-stopper when there's a TPK in there. In a Red Hand of Doom campaign I was in the party was doing fairly well until the blue dragon guarding the entrance to the temple at the end wiped us all out. We had gone pretty far by that point and felt that it wouldn't make sense to have another party "magically appear" where the dead ones were.

So I guess that's why I'm worried about this in the campaign that I am DM'ing, I am all for continuity and players "growing" with their characters, and establishing a "known" company like the Knights of Myth Drannor for example-- but we all know that PC's die. A "1" on a save, being critted by a Frost Giant, a monster they might be totally unprepared for, etc. etc. Having the possibility of permenant death will keep the PC's on their toes and help to avoid the "dumb PC" situations ("There's a glowing black evil rune on the door? Sure, I'll touch it! If I die I'll just come back!").

Several of you have some interesting ideas-- Jhaelen, I do think the Raelms try to be consistent, but don't succeed 100% of the time. I agree with the notion that King Azoun IV was "comfortable" with his death and didn't want his soul to return, he didn't really have unfinished business and knew that his kingdom was in pretty good hands with Alusair and Vangerdahast and the Purple Dragons... that makes sense.

Irdeggman, I do agree with the god's purposes statement. I think in my campaign I will limit these spells to clerics of deities with the appropriate portfolios, and only then under extenuating circumstances, like if the PC's ARE in the middle of a tough adventure against a baddie that threatens the entire land. So going to the temple of Selune or Waukeen wouldn't do it, but maybe for Tymora or Lathander, if the PC is a worshipper or of the same alignment. And of course if it is a nature god like possibly Silvanus then no _raise_ or _resurrection_, but maybe a _reincarnate_ as long as the PC embraced that philosophy.

Stream, I totally forgot about _Revivify_! That "saved from the brink of death" spell is a great idea, especially for situations where a PC death is "unfair" (like rolling that "1" on a save-or-die trap). It's costly enough that it's not always going to be a safety net, but affordable enough that it can keep the campaign and continuity on track.

How about some thoughts from players? As a player, what do you expect concerning these spells? As a cleric player, what do you think? Do you think your deity should give it to you because "it's in the Player's Handbook" or do you agree that only certain deities might allow it? As a player, would you think it's "unfair" that a DM might put a restriction on the power over life and death??


----------



## Dragonnety (May 26, 2009)

Well, I am not proud of it but I have player's dying all the time. I try to be good. You fall from the 80 ft pit, ok you don't die, you are just badly wounded. While being pulled up, you fall again 40 ft more, ok near death. but keep moving in the dungeon whith no potions or a cleric while you HP are less than ten then you had it coming.

And Mumford, yes sometimes rolling "1" is enough to die. I have seen it happening, it was not nice and we (DM and party) decided to pretend it never happened. It is better to "avoid" dying than to ressurect someone who fell from the stairs and broke his neck or someone that stabbed his own eye (true stories, both avoided)


----------



## Lazlo (May 26, 2009)

I'm a player who finds the path of RP more rewarding and exciting than the final destination.  I do think it cheapens the value to have people continuously popping back up again, but I kinda get attached to my chars.  In campaigns with lots of deaths and no rezzes, it almost became tiresome to come up with new and interesting character concepts.  If the battle was a draw, then we're bringing new people against a foe that got reinforcements while we were.  The draws and deaths continued with no advancement.  Why role play or even make a back story when he's only going to be around a couple sessions?


> In our 3e campaign Raise Dead was moved up to take over the Resurrection spell slot, and Resurrection moved up further to take over the True Resurrection slot. That certainly reduced how often they were seen in play.




This doesn't seem like a terrible idea.  I would say keep reincarnation where it is.  There are vast ways to roleplay reincarnation, especially since you can't turn into a roach any more.  I remember being a pixie well lol.  The only people who would dislike this are those disincluded from certain PrC's with a new race (though that could probably be worked around), or people who need their char to be 'sexy'.

It all depends if you are playing a fighting heavy campaign where deaths are very inevitable, or a slower campaign where people role play enough to find the party's strengths and weaknesses and survive longer as a result.


----------



## green slime (May 26, 2009)

All very nice for death to be meaningful for those occasions when the character dies a noble, heroic death.

Far less fun, and far more common, for the death to be caused by minor events snowballing into a catastrophic series of poor die rolling on the PC's part, leading to an ignomious end in a minor sidetrack, which was originally of no real consequence to the plot. Worse if it occurs in the first hour of the monthly game.

Leaves everyone round the table with a poor taste in their mouths. Oh, guess what John? You get to pick up the pizzas and play the Druid's wolf companion this time! Too bad you rolled a 3 "1"s in a row.


----------



## Amazing Mumford (May 26, 2009)

green slime said:


> All very nice for death to be meaningful for those occasions when the character dies a noble, heroic death.
> 
> Far less fun, and far more common, for the death to be caused by minor events snowballing into a catastrophic series of poor die rolling on the PC's part, leading to an ignomious end in a minor sidetrack, which was originally of no real consequence to the plot. Worse if it occurs in the first hour of the monthly game.
> 
> Leaves everyone round the table with a poor taste in their mouths. Oh, guess what John? You get to pick up the pizzas and play the Druid's wolf companion this time! Too bad you rolled a 3 "1"s in a row.





Totally agree with you there-- not too long ago we had a PC who died withing the first 15-20 minutes of the session! That bites for the player... Anyways, I've tried to prevent that situation in my campaign by having each player have a fully-prepared "back-up" PC that knows the party and is familiar with what the party is doing, so in the event of a very early death the "back-up" could be united with the rest of the party and the adventure can continue and the player can participate.  Getting the "back-up" to the party though is kinda tough at low levels...

Well I think personally I am going to implement a few of your ideas... I will move _raise dead_ up to the _resurrection_ slot, and move _resurrection_ up to the _true resurrection_ slot. I will mandate that only deities with appropriate portfolios give access to these spells, and also have nature-oriented PC's (druids, rangers, wu jen) have _reincarnation_ as their particular option for coming back from the dead. To offset these changes though I will not restrict access to _revivify_, and I think I will increase it's "time limit" to 2 rnds instead of 1... that makes it much more useful especially when being cast from a scroll, as it takes a move action just to get the scroll out!


----------



## irdeggman (May 26, 2009)

Amazing Mumford said:


> How about some thoughts from players? As a player, what do you expect concerning these spells? As a cleric player, what do you think? Do you think your deity should give it to you because "it's in the Player's Handbook" or do you agree that only certain deities might allow it? As a player, would you think it's "unfair" that a DM might put a restriction on the power over life and death??




As a player I do not mind PC death as long as it is heoric and not just a simple dice roll (I personally hate auto death spells and don't really like massive damage rules either, although they make sense I just don't like having PCs die with a single blow).

In 2nd ed I played in a Dark Sun setting (death is very common and it helps a player get over the stigma that their PC should never die). In Dark Sun the only characters that had raise dead, etc. spells were druids. Now that makes things a massive quandry since they are also all about fighting the unnatural and such.

I played in one home brewed game where I had something like 5 PCs die - and no ready access to raise dead (or the like). Finally my PC gained an artifact that allowed him to cast the spell (didn't help if he died - which he didn't by the way).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (May 27, 2009)

Amazing Mumford said:


> To offset these changes though I will not restrict access to _revivify_, and I think I will increase it's "time limit" to 2 rnds instead of 1... that makes it much more useful especially when being cast from a scroll, as it takes a move action just to get the scroll out!




Slightly related: my group generally allows anything weapon-like, such as wands, to be drawn like a weapon.  Of course, this would not apply to 50 different wands, but a few important ones kept on your belt or what-not, just like you generally have a sanity limit on how many weapons are within immediate reach and how many are in the pack or bag of holding.  So you could move and draw a wand in the same move action with BAB +1 or higher.  I personally made Quickdraw make drawing *anything* one action lower than it would normally be (move--> free; standard --> move, full round --> standard) for any game I run.  My group also generally allows a few key scrolls to be easily accesible on hte belt or similar, so assuming one of these is Revivify, a PC could also pull it out of the scroll case on the move.

Not that I'm opposed to increasing the time limit, though.  A little before my group became aware of Revivify, we were playing in a Final Fantasy 1 game.  In it, there were Fenix Downs, which functioned very similarly but were use-activated items (anyone can use) and had a longer time limit.  We weren't sure how long, it was kind of lost knowledge, and the only time we used one the entire campaign was 2 rounds after my PC died.  That might be another way to go.  Remove the spells entirely and have items such as that to take the place.  Mind you, the Fenix downs were extremely rare, and an almost forgotten form of magic.  We had an 8 month weekly game, from levels 1-15.  We found...two.  The entire campaign.  And it's quite possible the DM just slipped the second one in out of sympathy after we used up the first.  I know I'm not an unbiased source, but my character totally deserved that revive.


----------



## irdeggman (May 27, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Slightly related: my group generally allows anything weapon-like, such as wands, to be drawn like a weapon.  Of course, this would not apply to 50 different wands, but a few important ones kept on your belt or what-not, just like you generally have a sanity limit on how many weapons are within immediate reach and how many are in the pack or bag of holding.  So you could move and draw a wand in the same move action with BAB +1 or higher.




Actually this is the RAW.

Rules Compendium pg 8/9

Drawing Weapon (move action) - note references "If you have a BAB of +1 or higher, you can combine this action with moving your speed. Drawing a weapon applies to any weaponlike item, such as a wand, rod or staff, within easy reach. An item that is stored or out of easy reach must be retrieved as a stored item. . ."


----------



## DarkelvenSFi (May 27, 2009)

Dragonnety said:


> And Mumford, yes sometimes rolling "1" is enough to die. I have seen it happening, it was not nice and we (DM and party) decided to pretend it never happened.



We have a rule in our game that suggests that a natural 20 (as usual) is a critical threat, another 20 is a serious critical threat (loss of limbs / wounding), another 20 means a Fort save or die, another 20 means they implode on impact. It's all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it gives the players something to cheer about.

The flip side of this (to make the system fair) is with critical fumbles.. our barbarian once rolled a one, four times in a row, and failed the last roll to save. Normally on a critical fumble, the character ends up slapping themselves with the weapon (even if it's a ray; almost happened with our wizard and a disintegration ray); dealing damage. If it's a serious critical fumble, it's also a wound (bleeds), and if it's the fourth time; the player so thoroughly tangles themselves up that they cut off a limb; 1d6, one for each limb (no, 6 is a re-roll..). 

The barbarian, cuts of his leg. While bleeding, he has the wizard cast fly so he can get around and finish the battle. Later he begs the cleric to cast regeneration so he can have his leg back. 

Things like this make the campaign fun.


But back to the idea of resurrection. I don't see a problem with it.. it becomes a challenge for the characters to reach a high enough level to have the use of it, and then it becomes a chance of whether there's enough of the character left to make use of whatever spell the party has. Eventually, the party might no longer fear death so much as fear not being able to be revived. And then it's up to the DM to put some form of catch on dying so many times; such as having some powerful underworld being tire of having the character leave its grasp, so it sends minions up to collect him personally. Or to incorporate some mental anguish over dying so many times; having a chance of waves of vertigo or sickness whenever they enter battle (remembering what has happened before). The sickness gets worse the more often they die, and better the more time has passed between deaths.

There are a multitude of ways a DM can work around a player being frivolous with death.


----------



## Mon (May 27, 2009)

For years, we've had a house rule that works well for us. Well, a few house rules that work in conjunction actually.

1. Casting any spell that revives the dead must begin within one round per spell level of the death occurring, or else the soul has moved beyond the spell's reach on the journey to the afterlife.

2. _Gentle repose_ counts for the above purpose, but it only keeps the soul around for its duration so that more powerful spells can be used later to actually do the raising.

3. Instead of losing a level, raised characters gain a negative level which cannot be removed until the character gains his next level (we NEVER have actual level loss in our games... but negative levels are permanent until removed).

4. If it is too late to raise someone, and you have the wherewithal, you can take a trip to the outer planes and _try_ to get the soul back from the guardian of the dead on whichever plane it ended up on. This works up to the spells RAW time limit.

We find this situation works pretty well. We can have major NPC deaths as plot devices (nobody could reach the king in time...), AND have a get-out-of-jail-(almost)-free card for those accidental PC deaths.

Rules 1 and 4 we've used for a looong time. Since 2e days. Rules 2 and 3 were added later.

Just my $0.02


----------



## TessarrianDM (May 27, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> Combination of 1 and 3 for me.




I do the same thing, but do not worry about material components (for any spells, not just these). There are three clerics in the party, each following a different deity (and no two characters follow the same deity). The cleric of Kelemvor will not resurrect anyone; it is against his beliefs. The other two, who follow Mystra and Solonor Thelandira, have no problem with it. 

However, these spells are almost never needed for two reasons: the cleric of Mystra relies on _Revivify_ delivered with a _Spectral Hand_ followed by _Benign Transposition_ to prevent the death in the first place, and many times the players prefer to create a new character anyway. There has been only one PC resurrection since we started this campaign in 1998, but over a dozen deaths (not a single character is active now that was at the beginning, although several retired from play).

I also encourage the players to have a back-up character ready of one level lower than their current PC. They advance at the same time the main PC does, keeping them one level behind at all times. That way their net effect when they join the party is the same as if the main PC had been resurrected.

As far as the "world" implications of unfettered access, as another poster said, a soul must be willing to return. I have decided that few, if any, do.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 27, 2009)

Raise Dead, et. al. are in the PH for the sole intent of their use by the PLAYERS, and IMO have always been so in every edition.  The stupidity of DM's to use it on every NPC they run or allow it to be used on NPC's by PC's has never been the concern of the authors.  Clearly if they ever have thought about it they've never DONE anything to change it.  Q.E.D.
The DM can use any excuse he likes for why Raising doesn't work on NPC's (or why it works selectively) but why make excuses.  You're the DM and you have the position in the game that you do to declare and enforce resolutions to just this sort of issue.  The fact that you DON'T exercise your rights/responsibilities is again, not the concern of the authors.
If you don't want PLAYERS to be able to resurrect their characters then remove the spells entirely.  If you DO want players to be able to resurrect their characters then your concern is ONLY with how YOU apply the spell to YOUR NPC'S.
Players/PC's with cavalier attitudes about death and resurrection is the only remaining concern, but that's a ROLEPLAYING issue and not a rules-enforcement issue and should be dealt with on that basis.
What all that means is that I'm the DM.  When I don't want the spell to work on an NPC it doesn't.  No special tricks, restrictions, or penalties that apply equally to PC's are needed or wanted.  They are MY NPC's.  I assign them their level, advance their level whenever I want them advanced, give them whatever gold, magic, and influence over the plot/story and other NPC's as I see fit.  They live and die at MY convenience except as regards direct combat with the PC's.

If a player feels they need an excuse for why Raise Dead, etc. only rarely works on NPC's but works every time on a PC my first response is that the player is free to draw his own conclusions and requires no justification on my part regarding the NPC's.  Regarding the PC's reasons for why it always works you have to ask the player concerned.

If I want players to have a roleplaying peg to hang their understanding on then I tell them that for the vast majority of NPC's when they die they proceed to whatever form of afterlife their religion dictates.  In most cases this is some variety of paradise which they will NOT willingly give up.  This is MY roleplaying justification to apply to MY NPC's as desired.  They simply refuse to return - even if while alive they thought they'd never do so.

The spell is cast routinely for those who can afford it, but it rarely works.  NPC's WILL treat death as a solemn event no matter how PLAYERS treat it.  When PC's treat death and resurrection as "an inconvenience" they WILL be looked upon by NPC's as bizzare, if not nearly insane.  When the spell works it will be treated as the freak occurrence it is if not an outright MIRACLE and people who WILLINGLY return from the dead this way WILL ALWAYS be treated differently by NPC's who know about it as a result.

These spells are otherwise present in the game to enable PLAYERS to revive their characters and return them to play with minimal inconvenience.  The spells exist to preserve verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief for players who want to keep playing their characters.  They do not exist to be an unnecessary pain in the ass for a DM who [stupidly] feels they have to raise every NPC in their game world.


----------



## akbearfoot (May 27, 2009)

We're currently playing through the 3.5e Age of Wyrms campaign...We have access to all the Do-over spells and our characters are extremely powerful for their levels.  We use a varient death rule though where we can go to -half max hitpoints, and we have Healing surges from 4E...We still get our asses kicked and frequently end up in the -tweens.  Nobody has actually died yet, but if we weren't using all the changes we'd have had about a dozen deaths sofar...That's not really my idea of fun.  Constantly changing characters and having to come up with new reasons to have new faces suddenly join the fight...or better yet, the PC that loves his character concept so comes back with Landfill 2...then 3...then 4.

Not to mention that if you want to get rid of anything that brings characters back to life, then you are pretty much required to get rid of anything that can kill instantly, and changte all the monsters with such abilities.  Otherwise you are basically saying 'I want you to keep dying'.  Or you end up with the scenario that our old 2e group had...'What an level draining undead?  We RUN away...we're in the middle of town?  Hrmm, maybe a NPC cleric will show up and turn it...****keeps running***'

'Huh, that Spawn of Kyus can kill u instantly?  RUNS like hell....  Wyvern!?  they do Con damage!  We run away!'


----------



## Amazing Mumford (May 27, 2009)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> The spell is cast routinely for those who can afford it, but it rarely works. NPC's WILL treat death as a solemn event no matter how PLAYERS treat it. When PC's treat death and resurrection as "an inconvenience" they WILL be looked upon by NPC's as bizzare, if not nearly insane. When the spell works it will be treated as the freak occurrence it is if not an outright MIRACLE and people who WILLINGLY return from the dead this way WILL ALWAYS be treated differently by NPC's who know about it as a result.
> These spells are otherwise present in the game to enable PLAYERS to revive their characters and return them to play with minimal inconvenience. The spells exist to preserve verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief for players who want to keep playing their characters. They do not exist to be an unnecessary pain in the ass for a DM who [stupidly] feels they have to raise every NPC in their game world.




I kinda tend to agree with you there-- the visual of a PC group storming through the doors of a temple mid-service with the mangled, bloody, burned and eviscerated body of their comrade and throwing a heap of treasure on the ground and expecting a _raise dead_ or _resurrection_ is in my opinion quite insane. We had a Power Gamer in our group that viewed death as "inconvienent" and an "annoyance" and tried to justify that these spells were not strange at all... let's just say that our group now is having a bit more fun.



> They do not exist to be an unnecessary pain in the ass for a DM who [stupidly] feels they have to raise every NPC in their game world.




I don't need to _raise_ every NPC in the world-- that's what _stasis clone_ is for!!! 

Kidding, kidding...


----------



## Thanee (May 28, 2009)

Dragonnety said:


> House Rule : Characters of extreme power may sacrifice something great (extremely great) to ressurect someone (perhaps with the cost of his own life or more?).





> And of course you can always ressurect someone for the story.




This last part in context of the above somehow sounds horribly wrong to me. 

Either it is possible or not. If it is only possible with great sacrifice, then - for the story - a great sacrifice must be made as well.

It's definitly (in my opinion, anyways) not ok, to do something, that is not possible, just for the story. A story like that is invalid.

I suppose you didn't mean it that way, though. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dragonnety (May 28, 2009)

Hehe, the second doesn't exclude the other. 
Example : My party was totally wiped out by a black dragon. Not in a fight but beacuse I wanted a sidequest in hell (it was crucial for the campaign). They traveled in hell for a while to find themselves ressurected by a wizard they knew. The wizard was a major NPC and one of thegreatest wizards in my world. After the ressurection of the party he lost his connection with the weave (yeah I use the weave) for ever. 

Also

I have ressurected an NPC and now the PC's try to find out how this happened. There is an explanation of course, it didn't just happened.


----------



## Thanee (May 28, 2009)

Dragonnety said:


> They traveled in hell for a while to find themselves ressurected by a wizard they knew. The wizard was a major NPC and one of the greatest wizards in my world. After the ressurection of the party he lost his connection with the weave (yeah I use the weave) for ever.




I hope he had a _really_ (-R-E-A-L-L-Y-) good reason for that... If I were the wizard, I would have left them dead for sure. 

Ok, I certainly do not have the full picture, but that sounds more like a metagame decision to me (party should be able to continue and it should be reinforced how expensive such a resurrection is), not one that makes sense in the game world (why would someone with so much power sacrifice it just to get some fools that died back to live instead of finding new fools, of which there are thousands?).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dragonnety (May 28, 2009)

I think exactly like you, and believe me, if they were just another party of adventurers they would still try to find their way to Dis. 

But, beacuse I like deep-story senarios the wizard was compeled to do so. I can't tell the whole story because the campaign lasted for 3 years. But i can tell you that the wizard didn't needed them to do his "dirty" work.


----------



## zendruid (Jun 8, 2009)

Amazing Mumford said:


> Totally agree with you there-- not too long ago we had a PC who died withing the first 15-20 minutes of the session! That bites for the player...




I wonder who that was? Something makes me think it was a sentient ape or was it a jermlain psychic warrior. The pain still haunts me.


----------



## zendruid (Jun 8, 2009)

On whether a deity will grant the spell: DM's call. On whether the character would pray for it: player's call. Whether an NPC would pray for it: DM's call. Whether a character would accept it: player's call (personally if my character wouldn't want to be returned to life he won't accept or ask for the resurrection). Alignment and deity restrictions: DM's call (If the DM doesn't think the deity would allow their priest to cast it because the deity knows the soul of the deceased is evil I don't have any problem with that). I think story continuity is important but sometimes characters die even in stories, especially dramatic stories. Yes it sucks when you die and having a back-up character is very nice, especially one that is already in play, but if you roll a one you roll a one. This is the consequence of playing a game based on chance. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you. Revivify is an awesome spell, I'd give up all the other resurrection spells for a version of that spell with an extended usability. Caster level determines how long after TOD the character can be revived. Perhaps 1rnd per caster level cap at 5. Yes sometimes you'll be too late with your defibrillator but it's better than none at all. It may be possible to have a greater revivify that can function minutes or hours after TOD (Miracle Max from Princess Bride style, slipped him a potion of greater revivify in pill form). I believe wish and limited wish should still be able to bring the dead back to life, along with miracle, the cost of the spell justifies it. How often are you gonna see someone pay the price for that. On reincarnation, I'd give this not only to druids but clerics of nature/rebirth deities, it is not unnatural to return to the cycle of life. Certain races have general outlooks reflected in their deities, but individuals are given freewill and can choose what they want to do based on their desires. If the deities of that world view choose to answer the prayers of any given supplicant that is the will of said deity. Now if you are the DM you decide I as a player will deal with the consequences of playing in your sandbox.


----------



## MichaelK (Jun 11, 2009)

I treat these spells the same way I do fireball or magic-missile. They exist in the world and are available for PCs and NPCs to have on their spell lists. As such the world has adapted to the possibility of resurrections. 

Barghests are widely sought after for their ability to destroy souls. 

The Thieves' Guild have the Mortuarium, a secret dungeon where they put the bodies of their slain foes, animated as mindless zombies and shielded against scrying. (You can't resurrect the undead).

Trap the Soul, Mirror of Life Trapping and Imprisonment are good ways of dealing with someone permanently without killing them. 

But ultimately these are the sort of thing out of the reach of the common man. You have to be a high level character before resurrection and the ability to oppose it become available to you.


----------



## Dzyu (Sep 6, 2009)

Sorry for bumping such an old thread, but I would like to add a perspective about aquiring the materials none of you guys seem to have mentioned.

My point is: Diamonds. 5000 gp for a raise dead, 25000 gp for a true ressurection. If I want to limit the availability of ressurection in my campaign I limit the access to these components.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 6, 2009)

Dzyu said:


> Sorry for bumping such an old thread, but I would like to add a perspective about aquiring the materials none of you guys seem to have mentioned.
> 
> My point is: Diamonds. 5000 gp for a raise dead, 25000 gp for a true ressurection. If I want to limit the availability of ressurection in my campaign I limit the access to these components.



IME all that does is distort the purpose of the spell being in the game in the first place.  Either you wish to allow players to resurrect their characters or you don't.  If it's the former there's no reason to put excessive costs and restrictions upon obtaining the spell.  If it's the latter you should be removing the spell entirely.  The problem doesn't lie with the spells or their accessibility - it lies with the too-casual attitudes of players towards their characters deaths.

Players will ALWAYS pay the extra costs right up to the point that you make it a practical impossibility to afford it - at which point you are merely using the most annoying way of banning it's use/availability.  The purpose of the spell is COMPLETELY meta-game related and attempts to regulate its use should not be handled in-game by pricing it out of players reach.  All it will do is alienate and frustrate players without otherwise changing their attitudes and approaches to the subject.


----------



## aboyd (Sep 7, 2009)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Either you wish to allow players to resurrect their characters or you don't.  If it's the former there's no reason to put excessive costs and restrictions upon obtaining the spell.  If it's the latter you should be removing the spell entirely.



I do not believe that such a "zero sum" attitude accurately reflects reality.  Oh, and this:

Fallacy: False Dilemma


----------



## Shin Okada (Sep 7, 2009)

My playgroup is taking an approach similar to Mon's.

Our house rule for those spells are,

Raise Dead ... 10 min./level
Resurrection ... 1 hour/level
True Resurrection ... 1 hour/level
Reincarnate ... 1 day
Revive Outsider ... 10 min./level

Virtually, those spells are as easily available as games played as written. Still, this removes "no one ever dies" problem. Even if a king dies, if no friendly spell caster can use such spells within few hours, he dies forever.

Originally, we made similar house rule set when we played our first 3.0e campaign. PCs were fighting against a powerful empire ruled by a lawful evil church. Which has of course a lot of higher level clerics. They were efficient militant organization, too. 

Our consensus was that as it is much cheaper, faster & easier to resurrect a well-trained Blackguard or Cleric than to train another one, it seems odd that they don't raise slain villains. Without this kind of house rules, all the "BBEG of the adventure" will return in the sequels and that was .... annoying and non-dramatic.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 7, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I also heavily endorse spells like Revivify  [...] To me, using spells like that makes it seem like the person never died.  You're not undoing the most powerful force of nature with a cheap magic trick.  You're rescuing him/her from the _brink_ of it.



This is what I do, and exactly why, but I took it further.

I upped _revivify_ to a potential casting of (Caster Level) rounds (but it takes a minute to cast, so if you're 12th level you can start casting in the 12th round, and you'll finish in the 22nd).  I also created a spell called _soul net_ that can increase that time further.

I created _resuscitate_ at 7th level, which is _revivify_ but with a potential casting time in minutes.

In the case of both _revivify_ and _resuscitate_, I make it explicit that the soul has not left the body.  There is no actual "death," though there is D&D death (so things triggered on death still happen).

I removed _raise dead_ and _resurrection_.  I left _true resurrection_ alone.

Unfortunately, I also left _reincarnation_ alone, thinking that the risk of ending up a different race would deter its use somewhat, and wanting to encourage the playing of a druid in my heavily city-centric campaign.  Unfortunately, the spell largely became the cheap way back from death, and it didn't even encourage playing a druid, since the warforged artificer can make scrolls of it.

Nobody seems to care much about what race they return as, so mostly all it's done is disrupt my fairly dark campaign by introducing elements of ridiculousness.  (One PC started as a human, became a goblin, became a half-elf, and is currently a gnome.)

If I were doing things over again, I'd make _reincarnation_ at least 6th level, possibly 7th, and I'd have it create a duplicate body.  It would essentially be _raise dead_.  I might eliminate it completely.


----------



## Elethiomel (Sep 8, 2009)

MichaelK said:


> I treat these spells the same way I do fireball or magic-missile. They exist in the world and are available for PCs and NPCs to have on their spell lists. As such the world has adapted to the possibility of resurrections.
> 
> Barghests are widely sought after for their ability to destroy souls.
> 
> ...




This.

DnD rules are inconsistent with many of its published settings. You either adapt the setting to the system, or adapt the system to the setting.

I think a world in which resurrection is as readily available as the spells in the PHB indicate is a much more interesting place than Ye Olde Fantasy Settinge iteration 2143.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 23, 2018)

The spell was a patch for highly fragile characters and swingy mechanics ... they arent necessary in the game I play, however I always thought they needed an other world quest so they felt legendary instead of cheap.


----------

