|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 3:08AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 3:11AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
It's all up to the DM how available Raise Dead is. 9th level casters should not be par for the course, but rare and impressive people who have things to do for their church.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 3:36AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
Personally I severely limit ressurection spells. I think the very idea of them completely breaks any fantasy world.
"The King has been murdered!"
"Again? Get the ressurection scrolls."
I allow them but only a very short time after death, with the materials on hand.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 3:38AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Although I agree with you to some extent - as a player you always have the option, if you really believe that ". The death made sense, in and out of game." to refuse the raise dead.
I wish more players would look at the events from the perspective of what makes for a good story - and if the character's story deserves to end there, to let it end and create a new character.
That said - such things are always up to the DM. Who says there is a cleric of the necessary level in every small town the PCs pass through? Are they going to head all the way back to 'the big city' to find a cleric of the necessary level?
On the other hand - there is a general relationship between how long it takes to make a character and how easy it is to get raised. Games where it takes 30 seconds to a couple of minutes to make a character (e.g. AD&D 1st) can 'afford' to make raises tough to get and expensive - because the player (which is the one that matters, moreso than the character) is only out of action for a few minutes. Games where it takes thirty minutes using a computer program to create a character - and doing it by hand is prohibitive - can generally not afford such draconian raise dead rules.
D&D Next is trying to straddle both - and just as the decision of basic/standard/advanced - and what modules to use is in the hands of the DM, this needs to be as well.
I would recommend a sidebar on this issue. It the DM is running a basic game where the PCs can make a character and get back into the action in moments - by all means make raise dead hard to come by. If the DM is running a complex game with many modules and dials, and making a new character is a serious time commitment - I'd go with making death a bit less permanent.
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 3:38AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
when i DM, i reserve the resurrection spells for when a player loses a character they were really into. i usually have the resurrection be the work of some cult or ancient magic, and not something a PC can ever learn.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 3:48AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
Spells like raise dead or wish is why I wanted rituals to be a seperate system, versus an alternative casting method. It would tie together scroll creation, ritual books, componenet requirements, story components or other miscellaneous requirements. Like a scroll, you could set up ritual use for non-casters so if a cleric is not available you could have an alternative to find any ancient tomb of the dead, that requires a sanctified alter (ritual focus to replace componenets or caster level). If the cleric was available they would still need a sanctified area, and would need to be in the good graces of a local church.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:07AM
#7
|
|
|
While death is naturally a very serious thing, heck, it's a literal end, I am not personally a fan of losing a character that I am not ready to lose. I'm probably new-fashioned in that respect, and some may call me entitled, but I don't want to see a character that I put a large investment in removed from play at my inconvenience. A player character's end should be meaningful, and making resurrection abilities nigh-impossible to access makes lethality less than favorable to me. It's especially upsetting to lose a loved character due to a bad roll or two.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:13AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
While death is naturally a very serious thing, heck, it's a literal end, I am not personally a fan of losing a character that I am not ready to lose. I'm probably new-fashioned in that respect, and some may call me entitled, but I don't want to see a character that I put a large investment in removed from play at my inconvenience. A player character's end should be meaningful, and making resurrection abilities nigh-impossible to access makes lethality less than favorable to me. It's especially upsetting to lose a loved character due to a bad roll or two.
I agree with this, mostly. In my current situation, both the player and the character acted foolishly, and I felt more agreeable to this death than others in the past (possibly because this character's survival had already been fudged). The other player and the DM just went with what the rules say, that Raise Dead can be cast for X amount by the appropriate caster, and my character will be good as new in a few game days.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:17AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
While death is naturally a very serious thing, heck, it's a literal end, I am not personally a fan of losing a character that I am not ready to lose. I'm probably new-fashioned in that respect, and some may call me entitled, but I don't want to see a character that I put a large investment in removed from play at my inconvenience. A player character's end should be meaningful, and making resurrection abilities nigh-impossible to access makes lethality less than favorable to me. It's especially upsetting to lose a loved character due to a bad roll or two.
I agree with this, mostly. In my current situation, both the player and the character acted foolishly, and I felt more agreeable to this death than others in the past (possibly because this character's survival had already been fudged). The other player and the DM just went with what the rules say, that Raise Dead can be cast for X amount by the appropriate caster, and my character will be good as new in a few game days.
I don't know if you ever watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But I liked the bit of a twist that occured when they brought Buffy back from the dead.
She came back pissed off. She was in heaven. She was at rest. She was done with all the crap back in Sunnydale. And they yanked her out of there and forced her to come back and deal with all that again. And she was not happy about it.
Just because they raised your character, that doesn't mean you have to be happy about it.....
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:19AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
While death is naturally a very serious thing, heck, it's a literal end, I am not personally a fan of losing a character that I am not ready to lose. I'm probably new-fashioned in that respect, and some may call me entitled, but I don't want to see a character that I put a large investment in removed from play at my inconvenience. A player character's end should be meaningful, and making resurrection abilities nigh-impossible to access makes lethality less than favorable to me. It's especially upsetting to lose a loved character due to a bad roll or two.
I agree with this, mostly. In my current situation, both the player and the character acted foolishly, and I felt more agreeable to this death than others in the past (possibly because this character's survival had already been fudged). The other player and the DM just went with what the rules say, that Raise Dead can be cast for X amount by the appropriate caster, and my character will be good as new in a few game days.
I don't know if you ever watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But I liked the bit of a twist that occured when they brought Buffy back from the dead.
She came back pissed off. She was in heaven. She was at rest. She was done with all the crap back in Sunnydale. And they yanked her out of there and forced her to come back and deal with all that again. And she was not happy about it.
Just because they raised your character, that doesn't mean you have to be happy about it.....
Carl
Watched and love (most of) Buffy. I am definitely considering coming back upset... or possessed (by a Gnoll-summoned demon, with DM approval).
|
|
|
