Raise Dead in Next

I think Raise Dead should be a little harder to accomplish in Next, with a longer lasting penalty.

I am currently (that's the issue) playing a character that was killed by gnolls during the last session. Out of character, I simply failed to realize that this was the "big" encounter. In character, my Sorcerer is followed around by tribesman who tell him he is the reincarnation if a mighty dragon, indeed-- so he would not feel particularly threatened by mere gnolls... until it was too late. The death made sense, in and out of game.

After the rest of the party defeated the gnolls and finished the quest, another player simply hauled my body back to town, paid the monetary cost, and had an NPC caster in the city cast Raise Dead. If this was Next, my character would simply sleep it off for a few nights, and be good to go.

I think the Raise Dead penalty should last potentiality longer, perhaps for a level. I also think Raise Dead itself should have a risk for the caster, perhaps also imposing a penalty on them, making it unlikely most NPCs would cast it on a stranger, and also of more consequence to the players.

Last year, in this campaign, the party was captured by orcs rather than TPKd, and later escaped. I think some DM fudging (like the capture) is fine, but sometimes the character has to die, and it has to mean something.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

without alignment in the game you will be floating around in a netherworld of nothingness guess another reason to include it as a module



Without alignment in the game, all souls can go to the same place and be rewarded or punished as their life actions dictate.  So not, it's not really a reason to include it in the game.  History is . . . and it's plenty good enough of a reason to do so.  Whole settings were built around it, as well as the symmetry of the default/greyhawk cosmology.
Without alignments, the imaginary souls of imaginary characters go whatever imaginary place players and/or DMs imagine.  With alignments, the imaginary place is merely pre-imaginend.



Just because they raised your character, that doesn't mean you have to be happy about it.....


Carl       



In D&D, though, you have the option to refuse to come back.  If you CHOOSE to come back, you can hardly be upset with the person who cast the spell.



Where  - outside of fourth edition - is this stated?



Carl



Here is 3e.

You restore life to a deceased creature. You can raise a creature that has been dead for no longer than one day per caster level. In addition, the subject’s soul must be free and willing to return. If the subject’s soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw.



I don't see it in my 2e PHB, but I could swear it says it somewhere in that edition.
I don't see it in my 2e PHB, but I could swear it says it somewhere in that edition.

1E/2E has the CON-cap gimmick instead.

I don't see it in my 2e PHB, but I could swear it says it somewhere in that edition.

1E/2E has the CON-cap gimmick instead.




Yeah.  It's been ages since I played those editions.
Sword of Spirit:
 If a first level character really wants to come back, despite the risks, why should you tell him no just because he can't afford to pay?  



In past editions (when a raise cost far more than any low level PC could afford) the standard practice in our groups (and elsewhere too, I would guess) was that you 'worked it off'.  This could be anything from undertaking whatever task the temple needed done (i.e. instant plot hook) or even working as a guard for the temple between adventures.


It doesn't have to be cheap and without consequences to still be available.


This can easily be handled through sidebar advice for the DM. 

Carl   
This is mostly table by table. It depends heavily of the group. I already had some ideas of the process, none of them tested.
About the penalty issue, I'm mostly okay if is reversible in some way.
Everyone wants a different game, and so wizards should be working on a sidebar that explains what happens if you choose certain options. For instance: 1). No ressurection: pro: death is very serious - gives the opportunity for heroic sacrifices. Con: can make players feel a beloved character died before the story is complete. Best used: when creating characters is fast, and when shorter campaigns mean less time for complex stories. 2). Gold only, or temporary setbacks. Pro: players can choose when their characters story ends. Con: some people find death is too temporary, leading to reduced interest/engagement. 3) permanent drawbacks: pro: Keeps death a disincentive, increasing "edge of seat feeling". Con: Permanent drawbacks can feel like the player is being permanently punished for bad rolls or bad decisions previously. IMHO, permanent drawbacks seem the worst of all worlds - cheapening death compared To "no resurrection" and punishing players. But, as long as the dm who is makin the permanent drawback understands the players who like that kind of thing, I'm happy.




People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.  D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.
People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.

I bet I know where this is going.


...excuse me while I get some popcorn.
People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.

I bet I know where this is going.


...excuse me while I get some popcorn.



Pinkie Pie will share.
IMAGE(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa279/LolaBonne/Forum%20Pics/Popcorn.jpg)
People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.

I bet I know where this is going.


...excuse me while I get some popcorn.




Where'sit going!  You don't deny WotC is a company and would like to make a profit off of the D&D brand?
Where'sit going!  You don't deny WotC is a company and would like to make a profit off of the D&D brand?

Just wait.  You'll see soon enough.

Just wait.  You'll see soon enough.

Incoming! Take Cover!

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.  D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.



There are at least two reasons I can think of off the top of my head why these two games are not comparable at all in this regard:

a)  In some aspects of WoW, death is actually something that is expected to happen to your character a lot.  Sometimes, over and over again about every 5 minutes.  In D&D, the assumption is usually that death is a very serious event that is to be avoided at most costs.

b)  You can't ignore rules you don't like in WoW.  Think the death penalty is too harsh in D&D?  Change it.  Think the death penalty is too harsh in WoW?  Tough.
People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.

I bet I know where this is going.


...excuse me while I get some popcorn.

I can't keep quiet any longer. 3.0 has turned D&D into an Everquest clone. They've removed THACO which COMPLETELY unbalances the game. And they've removed race restrictions and allowed unlimited multiclassing. How are dwarves suppose to feel different when they can have any class combination that a human or an elf can! This is absolutely unforgivable and I predict no-one will play D&D by 2003!
Everyone wants a different game, and so wizards should be working on a sidebar that explains what happens if you choose certain options. For instance: 1). No ressurection: pro: death is very serious - gives the opportunity for heroic sacrifices. Con: can make players feel a beloved character died before the story is complete. Best used: when creating characters is fast, and when shorter campaigns mean less time for complex stories. 2). Gold only, or temporary setbacks. Pro: players can choose when their characters story ends. Con: some people find death is too temporary, leading to reduced interest/engagement. 3) permanent drawbacks: pro: Keeps death a disincentive, increasing "edge of seat feeling". Con: Permanent drawbacks can feel like the player is being permanently punished for bad rolls or bad decisions previously. IMHO, permanent drawbacks seem the worst of all worlds - cheapening death compared To "no resurrection" and punishing players. But, as long as the dm who is makin the permanent drawback understands the players who like that kind of thing, I'm happy.




People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.  D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.



World of Warcraft is a VIDEO GAME.  D&D is an RPG.  They are very, very different types of games.
Everyone wants a different game, and so wizards should be working on a sidebar that explains what happens if you choose certain options. For instance: 1). No ressurection: pro: death is very serious - gives the opportunity for heroic sacrifices. Con: can make players feel a beloved character died before the story is complete. Best used: when creating characters is fast, and when shorter campaigns mean less time for complex stories. 2). Gold only, or temporary setbacks. Pro: players can choose when their characters story ends. Con: some people find death is too temporary, leading to reduced interest/engagement. 3) permanent drawbacks: pro: Keeps death a disincentive, increasing "edge of seat feeling". Con: Permanent drawbacks can feel like the player is being permanently punished for bad rolls or bad decisions previously. IMHO, permanent drawbacks seem the worst of all worlds - cheapening death compared To "no resurrection" and punishing players. But, as long as the dm who is makin the permanent drawback understands the players who like that kind of thing, I'm happy.




People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.  D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.



World of Warcraft is a VIDEO GAME.  D&D is an RPG.  They are very, very different types of games.



One makes damn near $100,000,000 a month...  The other probably hasn't made that in it's existence. I think Hasbro cares about the $$$$'s.  And I hate to say it but D&D is a game created to make a profit. If it isn't profitable there is no moving forward with the brand. You don't think Habro would like some of that market share for a new version of D&D Online?  Their eye is not just on the book a month to be published.

Point being, the niche that think throwing away months of progress on a character because it got critted by a swarm of rats is much smaller then the group that does not like harsh penalties for playing a game. The people on this forum, the 10-20 that post for harsh death penalties are in such an outlier minority that the default Raise Dead will always be generous and folks who want harsh penalties or no Raise Dead will have to houserule that.

Should be a setting/DM dial.

Agreed. Each group should decide how each campaign will be -- death is final, death is fixable with a LOT of effort and expenditure, death is fixable, death is merely a speed bump in the campaign road. Wizads can provide dials for different options.

Each player will have opinions on how his characters are handled. I have one I'd rather see keep campaigning forever. I had another that (story wise) it made sense that she would decide "no more resurrections or raises -- if Sif wants me that badly, I'd better listen." and then she went out in a glorious battle with a demon a few months later. She's now becoming the focus of a "personality cult," much like veneration of a saint.

Unlike in computer and video games, each group is able to bend or change the rules to suit the world, the campaign, and the people around the table. It's not revenue-related; it's gameplay- and group preference-related.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Also of possible interest -- whether or not Raise Dead and similar spells should be ritual-only spells: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Everyone wants a different game, and so wizards should be working on a sidebar that explains what happens if you choose certain options. For instance: 1). No ressurection: pro: death is very serious - gives the opportunity for heroic sacrifices. Con: can make players feel a beloved character died before the story is complete. Best used: when creating characters is fast, and when shorter campaigns mean less time for complex stories. 2). Gold only, or temporary setbacks. Pro: players can choose when their characters story ends. Con: some people find death is too temporary, leading to reduced interest/engagement. 3) permanent drawbacks: pro: Keeps death a disincentive, increasing "edge of seat feeling". Con: Permanent drawbacks can feel like the player is being permanently punished for bad rolls or bad decisions previously. IMHO, permanent drawbacks seem the worst of all worlds - cheapening death compared To "no resurrection" and punishing players. But, as long as the dm who is makin the permanent drawback understands the players who like that kind of thing, I'm happy.

 


People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.  D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.

 

World of Warcraft is a VIDEO GAME.  D&D is an RPG.  They are very, very different types of games.


World of Warcraft is a MMORPG, and Dungeons and Dragons is a TTRPG. Both are RPGs.


Should be a setting/DM dial.

 Agreed. Each group should decide how each campaign will be -- death is final, death is fixable with a LOT of effort and expenditure, death is fixable, death is merely a speed bump in the campaign road. Wizads can provide dials for different options.

Each player will have opinions on how his characters are handled. I have one I'd rather see keep campaigning forever. I had another that (story wise) it made sense that she would decide "no more resurrections or raises -- if Sif wants me that badly, I'd better listen." and then she went out in a glorious battle with a demon a few months later. She's now becoming the focus of a "personality cult," much like veneration of a saint.

Unlike in computer and video games, each group is able to bend or change the rules to suit the world, the campaign, and the people around the table. It's not revenue-related; it's gameplay- and group preference-related.


I agreed that it should be a campaign thing.





I totally disagree that in D&D the assumption is that death is always meaningful.    That's not how AD&D played out at all.  

In my campaigns, I really want spells like raise dead, remove paralysis, cure disease, stone to flesh etc to be  combat enabled.  IMO, there is nothing wrong with casting raise dead  or even animate dead during combat.  In fact, animating dead players is a favorite tactic of mine when I'm running demons.   

I think we need spells in the game that take a few rounds to cast and rules for interrupting such spells.  Perhaps a good optional rule would be one round per level casting time.

I also see no reason why raise dead must be a ritual either.   If I'm playing a dungeon crawl that is basically a death trap then death is common.  

In fact, my players love character death and we don't need it to always be meaningful either.   The more ridiculous the death the more we laugh.    After all, we are not trying to write an epic story all the time, we are just playing D&D.          

"Remember the time the druid turned into a snake and went down that hole in the ground.. moments later he was eaten alive by a few badgers.   lol...  stupid druid. "  

Lastly, I think death should have a punishment.   IMO, losing a Con point works well. 






One makes damn near $100,000,000 a month...  The other probably hasn't made that in it's existence. I think Hasbro cares about the $$$$'s.  And I hate to say it but D&D is a game created to make a profit. If it isn't profitable there is no moving forward with the brand. You don't think Habro would like some of that market share for a new version of D&D Online?  Their eye is not just on the book a month to be published.

Point being, the niche that think throwing away months of progress on a character because it got critted by a swarm of rats is much smaller then the group that does not like harsh penalties for playing a game. The people on this forum, the 10-20 that post for harsh death penalties are in such an outlier minority that the default Raise Dead will always be generous and folks who want harsh penalties or no Raise Dead will have to houserule that.



If Blizzard were to release a TTRPG tomorrow that played exactly the same as World of Warcraft, do you think their profit from said venture would come anywhere near to approaching WoW's?  4e's?  3e's?  (The answer in all cases will be 'no,' I promise you)



One makes damn near $100,000,000 a month...  The other probably hasn't made that in it's existence. I think Hasbro cares about the $$$$'s.  And I hate to say it but D&D is a game created to make a profit. If it isn't profitable there is no moving forward with the brand. You don't think Habro would like some of that market share for a new version of D&D Online?  Their eye is not just on the book a month to be published.

Point being, the niche that think throwing away months of progress on a character because it got critted by a swarm of rats is much smaller then the group that does not like harsh penalties for playing a game. The people on this forum, the 10-20 that post for harsh death penalties are in such an outlier minority that the default Raise Dead will always be generous and folks who want harsh penalties or no Raise Dead will have to houserule that.



If Blizzard were to release a TTRPG tomorrow that played exactly the same as World of Warcraft, do you think their profit from said venture would come anywhere near to approaching WoW's?  4e's?  3e's?  (The answer in all cases will be 'no,' I promise you)






That's correct.   A WoW TTRPG game for 3.5e already exists and it was a failure.   
 



One makes damn near $100,000,000 a month...  The other probably hasn't made that in it's existence. I think Hasbro cares about the $$$$'s.  And I hate to say it but D&D is a game created to make a profit. If it isn't profitable there is no moving forward with the brand. You don't think Habro would like some of that market share for a new version of D&D Online?  Their eye is not just on the book a month to be published.

Point being, the niche that think throwing away months of progress on a character because it got critted by a swarm of rats is much smaller then the group that does not like harsh penalties for playing a game. The people on this forum, the 10-20 that post for harsh death penalties are in such an outlier minority that the default Raise Dead will always be generous and folks who want harsh penalties or no Raise Dead will have to houserule that.



If Blizzard were to release a TTRPG tomorrow that played exactly the same as World of Warcraft, do you think their profit from said venture would come anywhere near to approaching WoW's?  4e's?  3e's?  (The answer in all cases will be 'no,' I promise you)





You are correct. My point isn't necessarily what is profitable for the sake of profit, but profit as an indicator of what player preference is. These forums are so small but they are loud and I think that some otherwise unpopular and archaic ideas get adopted. EQ was the harder core MMO when WoW came out and we all know who won that fight.  And for a lot of reasons it was because of accessability and non-punitiveness.

That's what I am advocating for the default D&D recommendations. Combat ought to be fast, flexible, and deadly. The consequences are lost time basically. Grittiness can be modular for things like stat loss, lingering injury, low magic, higher death penalty etc.

Cliff notes for the TLDR crowd:

1.  You don't just have to look at the older version of the game for inspiration.
2.  You don't just have to look at other forms of PnP.
3.  Game should strive for fun and excitement over realism. 
Lastly, I think death should have a punishment.   IMO, losing a Con point works well.

Deathspirals are bad, M'kay.

Lastly, I think death should have a punishment.   IMO, losing a Con point works well.

Deathspirals are bad, M'kay.




Well.  I think players need to be afraid of death or they 'll just be careless in the way they play their character.     


The usual punishment of being "out" until the party comes up with a rez is quite adequate.
The usual punishment of being "out" until the party comes up with a rez is quite adequate.



No... the game shouldn't stop for that player.   Give him a monster or animate his dead corpse into a zombie.


Lastly, I think death should have a punishment.   IMO, losing a Con point works well.

Deathspirals are bad, M'kay.




Well.  I think players need to be afraid of death or they 'll just be careless in the way they play their character.     



And?
Lastly, I think death should have a punishment.   IMO, losing a Con point works well.

Deathspirals are bad, M'kay.




Well.  I think players need to be afraid of death or they 'll just be careless in the way they play their character.     


Except if you just throw an arbitrary penalty for dying, it just becomes another annoyance after a while. And with a CON penalty, it'll be happening more often, since dying makes them lose hit points, which makes them die faster, which makes them lose more hit points, etc.

As far as Raise Dead, it depends on the table and how much you want death to mean in our game.
The usual punishment of being "out" until the party comes up with a rez is quite adequate.



No... the game shouldn't stop for that player.   Give him a monster or animate his dead corpse into a zombie.

Every group I've been in punished the "dead" guy with a beer/tacobell run.

Lastly, I think death should have a punishment.   IMO, losing a Con point works well.

Deathspirals are bad, M'kay.




Well.  I think players need to be afraid of death or they 'll just be careless in the way they play their character.     


Except if you just throw an arbitrary penalty for dying, it just becomes another annoyance after a while. And with a CON penalty, it'll be happening more often, since dying makes them lose hit points, which makes them die faster, which makes them lose more hit points, etc.

As far as Raise Dead, it depends on the table and how much you want death to mean in our game.



Also demonstrates one of D&D's classic faults, that there's almost no way to fail that doesn't involve dying.
Lastly, I think death should have a punishment.   IMO, losing a Con point works well.

Deathspirals are bad, M'kay.




Well.  I think players need to be afraid of death or they 'll just be careless in the way they play their character.     


Except if you just throw an arbitrary penalty for dying, it just becomes another annoyance after a while. And with a CON penalty, it'll be happening more often, since dying makes them lose hit points, which makes them die faster, which makes them lose more hit points, etc.

As far as Raise Dead, it depends on the table and how much you want death to mean in our game.



Also demonstrates one of D&D's classic faults, that there's almost no way to fail that doesn't involve dying.




How so?

Also demonstrates one of D&D's classic faults, that there's almost no way to fail that doesn't involve dying.



Just my own opinion, but I really feel that's more of a DM/playstyle fault than a game fault.

At least as far back as 1E and BECMI, "failure" for the group has meant anything and everything from the princess dying because you couldn't find the antidote to the poison she ingested to the undead horde overtaking the kingdom because you couldn't find and destroy the lich's phylactery.

Since they are now available for download, grab some of the old 1E adventures and give them a look-through. You might be surprised at the various ways the party can fail (that do not involve death) as opposed to the perhaps one and only way they can succeed. And before anyone chimes in about the Tomb of Horrors, that one is an exception. It was a tournament module designed to kill off PCs. That's it. Whoever lasted the longest without dying (or in the rare 1 out of 100 chance that someone made it all the way through on their first playthrough) was the "winner".

Of course, party death is a near-guaranteed failure, but that has never been the only way to fail or even the most proliferated way.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Everyone wants a different game, and so wizards should be working on a sidebar that explains what happens if you choose certain options. For instance: 1). No ressurection: pro: death is very serious - gives the opportunity for heroic sacrifices. Con: can make players feel a beloved character died before the story is complete. Best used: when creating characters is fast, and when shorter campaigns mean less time for complex stories. 2). Gold only, or temporary setbacks. Pro: players can choose when their characters story ends. Con: some people find death is too temporary, leading to reduced interest/engagement. 3) permanent drawbacks: pro: Keeps death a disincentive, increasing "edge of seat feeling". Con: Permanent drawbacks can feel like the player is being permanently punished for bad rolls or bad decisions previously. IMHO, permanent drawbacks seem the worst of all worlds - cheapening death compared To "no resurrection" and punishing players. But, as long as the dm who is makin the permanent drawback understands the players who like that kind of thing, I'm happy.




People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.  D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.



World of Warcraft is a VIDEO GAME.  D&D is an RPG.  They are very, very different types of games.



One makes damn near $100,000,000 a month...



Well if money is the only criteria, D&D should be a big oil corporation.......but money is not the only criteria and D&D should not be made to be like WoW.

I think Hasbro cares about the $$$$'s.  And I hate to say it but D&D is a game created to make a profit.



D&D makes a profit.  It doesn't have to be as large a profit as WoW to be kept around.


Everyone wants a different game, and so wizards should be working on a sidebar that explains what happens if you choose certain options. For instance: 1). No ressurection: pro: death is very serious - gives the opportunity for heroic sacrifices. Con: can make players feel a beloved character died before the story is complete. Best used: when creating characters is fast, and when shorter campaigns mean less time for complex stories. 2). Gold only, or temporary setbacks. Pro: players can choose when their characters story ends. Con: some people find death is too temporary, leading to reduced interest/engagement. 3) permanent drawbacks: pro: Keeps death a disincentive, increasing "edge of seat feeling". Con: Permanent drawbacks can feel like the player is being permanently punished for bad rolls or bad decisions previously. IMHO, permanent drawbacks seem the worst of all worlds - cheapening death compared To "no resurrection" and punishing players. But, as long as the dm who is makin the permanent drawback understands the players who like that kind of thing, I'm happy.

 


People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions.  D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.

 

World of Warcraft is a VIDEO GAME.  D&D is an RPG.  They are very, very different types of games.


World of Warcraft is a MMORPG, and Dungeons and Dragons is a TTRPG. Both are RPGs.



No.  Video games are misclassified as RPGs.  They are not RPGs since all you do is run around playing a video game with other people.  Unless you are on a roleplaying specific server (and the vast majority of people on those don't roleplay, either), there is no roleplaying involved.

Just wait.  You'll see soon enough.

Incoming! Take Cover!


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Take a look at this and help me improve these healing powers.



































LevelPower DieOr +/-
1-51d42
6-101d63
11-151d84
16-201d105
21-251d126















































Cure WoundsHealing1stoff-handwis vs dc 10Reduce your damage or your ally damage by your power die.
Cure AfflictionHealing2ndoff-handwis vs disease dcSlow Affliction
If you roll -4+ than the needed DC, the effect is slowed for the duration of the encounter. The affected takes half damage from ongoing effects.

Neutralize Affliction
If you roll -3 to -1 the needed DC, the effect is temporarily neutralized for the duration of the encounter. The affected takes no damage for 1 day.


Remove Affliction
If you roll the DC or higher, the affliction is completely removed during the encounter and after.


Regenerate RestoreHealing3rdMainwis vs conrestore age, sight, hearing, experience points, limbs, and movement to yourself and party members.
Raise DeadHealing4thMainwis vs conYour dead ally's hit points are restored to 0. Roll a d20. Roll above a 10 3 times and the dead are raised. Each roll under 10 does 1d6 damage. If the dead takes damage equal to the constitution score + level, the dead can't come back.
Animate ObjectsHealing5thMainwis vs dc 10You animate a number of objects equal to your power die. Each object has hit points equal your power die and does your power die in damage. The objects use your attack roll.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

Two suggestions: 1). If you want people to rally around your cause, please say more than "it's like a video game". After all, wizardy 1 was released in 1981 with fighter wizard cleric rogue and so every version of d&d with the core four since then has been like a video game. If having that core four is okay even though it is like a video game, then we need more info on why you don't like things other than just "like a video game". Now, if the argument is "it came first from a video game", then you have to argue why an ideas lineage disqualified it. Or, explain _why_ you don't like the idea.

2). For anyone who is a dm, saying "players need to fear death" or any other punatice rule, the dm should be banned from creating a rule that is more punitive than a rule in a game they've enjoyed as a player. If you argue for con loss as a player, or permanent death as a player, feel free to institute that in your game. Otherwise, you may want to create games that you'd enjoy playing as a player.
Two suggestions: 1). If you want people to rally around your cause, please say more than "it's like a video game". After all, wizardy 1 was released in 1981 with fighter wizard cleric rogue and so every version of d&d with the core four since then has been like a video game.



This premise is false.  Having classes named the same as D&D does not make a video game like D&D.  There's this little thing called ROLEPLAYING that is required for something to be a ROLEPLAYING game.  Video games don't have that.


Sign In to post comments