PDA

View Full Version : Idea for Making Ressurrection Less Available (WTB REZ, PLZ?)



Farcaster
08-08-2007, 12:11 PM
One of the problems that I see in D&D is that resurrections get tossed around like they are nothing. Last night, I was reading an older Forgotten Realms book and in the first chapter, there was a priest ready to cast resurrection and bring someone back from the dead like it was nothing. In literature, this is especially disturbing, but even in the RPG I think that the ability to be raised from the dead is all too available.

In a game that I briefly played in, the GMs home-brewed rule was to only allow resurrection spells to be cast on holy days of the priest who was casting the spell, but I found this WAY to limiting, especially since I was playing a priest who had but one holy day a year. He also required that the ceremony be performed in a temple, which is not a bad rule -- except that we were supposed to be delving deep into the Underdark and the DM's game was a little on the lethal side.

In the story I was reading last night, the priestess whipped out a prepared scroll to raise one of the fallen characters, which got me thinking. We all know that scroll would take no more than a day to prepare, some experience and thousands of gold in miscellaneous materials. What if to cast a resurrection spell, the priest HAD to prepare materials (like a scroll, sort of) ahead of time. Perhaps the spell to prepare the materials can only be used once per month. Thus, any single priest could only prepare materials for up to twelve castings per year, which could be adjusted depending on the preference of the DM and needs of the campaign.

Its just a thought that occurred to me as a was slipping off into dream land, but it is workable and it would make priests a little more reticent to start throwing resurrections around.

Ed Zachary
08-08-2007, 12:20 PM
There are no material components for Resurrection, but I like to milk the characters out of 50,000 in spell components to be able to cast it.

Farcaster
08-08-2007, 12:28 PM
Unless I am mistaken, the component needed for each of the spells in the raise dead line is an escalating amount of diamonds:

Raise Dead - 5000gp worth
Resurrection - 10,000gp worth
True Resurrection - 25,000gp worth

What I am suggesting is adding a process or perhaps another spell that can only be completed once per month to "bless" and prepare the diamonds needed. So, you wouldn't just need the diamonds; you'd need already prepared diamonds. That would still make it possible to have multiple resurrections performed in a single day, but still add another degree of control to the rate resurrections can be performed.

Ed Zachary
08-08-2007, 12:43 PM
The game is about letting the players' play their characters. If they can recover the body, afford the cost, and fibd someone who will cast the spell, the character will come back.

But I do charge more gold, and the spell casting time is longer.

Moritz
08-08-2007, 01:26 PM
Recover the Body:

Even if it's been digested and is now Dragon Poop?

Ed Zachary
08-08-2007, 01:31 PM
Recover the Body:

Even if it's been digested and is now Dragon Poop?

Players Handbook... page 272... third column... half way down the page...

"The condition of the remains is not a factor."

Farcaster
08-08-2007, 01:48 PM
Ed, the condition of the remains limits which spell can be used to bring back the dead.

Raise Dead: While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole.

Resurrection: So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be resurrected ...

True Resurrection: This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed ...

If the body were fully digested as Moritz suggested, I'd probably rule that the character could only be resurrected by the True Resurrection spell -- even if the characters had a sample of .. ehem .. said "poop."

TheYeti1775
08-08-2007, 01:49 PM
Add in a worship or quest factor.
Distinguish marks of someone that has seen death and come back.

Ed Zachary
08-08-2007, 02:05 PM
If the body were fully digested as Moritz suggested, I'd probably rule that the character could only be resurrected by the True Resurrection spell -- even if the characters had a sample of .. ehem .. said "poop."

I'm a nastier DM... I'd let them use the spell and have a random creature resurrected that the monster may have eaten.

Farcaster
08-08-2007, 02:13 PM
Or perhaps the casting would create a new monster akin to the "Living Spell" -- "Living Poop!" That would definitely fall into the "aberration (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3262)" category, btw, Frank. But, I digress.

fmitchell
08-08-2007, 04:16 PM
Or perhaps the casting would create a new monster akin to the "Living Spell" -- "Living Poop!"

Think of it as a way to introduce Dralasites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dralasite) into the campaign.

spotlight
08-08-2007, 04:27 PM
Hey, I like this little discourse. One must remember that although 'the condition of the remains' may not be a factor, the fact that the 'remains' are now 'poop' means they are no longer remains, but are now poop. Good Luck, Dogooders!!!

Grimwell
08-09-2007, 01:15 AM
I've always felt that things like Ressurrection are too common in D&D (for my tastes). Bringing someone back from the dead is an event, and they should owe the God who brought them back big time...

So a little geas/quest that they can't refuse is always fun. :)

This allows them to come back, but at a price. Just a suggestion.

shilar
08-09-2007, 08:08 AM
I take the cheap way out. I just don't feel that every temple would have a 9th level cleric(the minimum required for raise dead). Just like not every catholic church has a cardinal. I figure the max at local temple would be 5th level. It's not a problem to get a resurrection in my game. As long as you are tight with the regional high priest or are considered important enough to get in to see him.

InfoStorm
08-09-2007, 09:03 AM
Never had issues with raising the dead that couldn't be cured by good solid role playing reasons. Clerics might refuse to raise because they were not a follower, While PC's may have the gold, a large enough diamond wasn't in the local economy.

Moritz
08-09-2007, 09:35 AM
BLACK PUDDING!


Or perhaps the casting would create a new monster akin to the "Living Spell" -- "Living Poop!" That would definitely fall into the "aberration (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3262)" category, btw, Frank. But, I digress.

Skylon
08-09-2007, 10:51 AM
What about side effects? Sure you can be brought back to life, but at what cost? Ressurrection gone bad.

Maybe you don't get your all-too-powerful ally back. Maybe you just create an outbreak of zombies. Maybe your revived hero is forced to be stuck in teh state he was in at death (be it missing limbs or in extreme pain.)

Sometimes there need to be drawbacks to 'the easy way out.'

Moritz
08-09-2007, 11:01 AM
What about side effects? Sure you can be brought back to life, but at what cost? Ressurrection gone bad.


Yeah, you just don't even know the amount of whining I would hear for doing something like this. The whining would be more painful than the character's pain.

Farcaster
08-09-2007, 11:35 AM
I just don't feel that every temple would have a 9th level cleric(the minimum required for raise dead).

This only works to a point. Once the party cleric is high enough level to cast the spell, this preventative measure will only make a difference when the cleric himself dies.


a large enough diamond wasn't in the local economy.

I've used that one before. Technically though, the requirement is for multiple diamonds that total the amount needed for the spell. But, requiring that it be a single diamond worth that amount is another reasonable approach. The reason I still don't like it is because it takes very little preparation time and the casting is little more significant than any other spell the cleric might cast after his morning oats. 10 minutes, boom, its done. Now, back in second edition, when the cleric himself gave up some of his life-force, aging a number of years when he cast resurrection -- that definitely made it more significant. But, of course, then the party cleric takes a beating, so that isn't a system I'd like to go back to.

Ed Zachary
08-09-2007, 12:23 PM
This only works to a point. Once the party cleric is high enough level to cast the spell, this preventative measure will only make a difference when the cleric himself dies.

Every character should buy their own Clone.

Farcaster
08-09-2007, 12:26 PM
Sorry, Ed. This is for D&D not SW. ;)

Ed Zachary
08-09-2007, 12:40 PM
SW???

Clone is an 8th level arcane spell, and it's dirt cheap to cast. The only drawback is in trusting your friends to give your new self your items back.

TheYeti1775
08-09-2007, 12:44 PM
Perhaps adding a few factors is needed.

Create a list of "Marks of Death" for the gods that might possibly bring someone back.

Pelor
1st time back - A tanning of the skin, the ever desire to stand in the sun and soak in it's rays.
2nd time back - an aversion to places that cant be sunlight.
After this start throwing in a few penalties for continually being brought back.

You can have a lot of fun with house rules with this. I know in Valus (Different Worlds Publishing), each of the gods will leave their mark on you in some way. We had one character brought back by a god that hated Druids. Anytime he saw a Druid being burned at the stake he had to cheer it on. He couldn't knowingly associate with Druids either. Made for some interesting RP'ing as we did have a Druid in the party. Luckily they were already planning on leaving.
The mark can be entirely cosemtic as well, without any mechanical penalty. Only affects the RP of it.

Once my mage used a Limited Wish to recreate a Raise Dead, it RP'd out that it was a very draining effect (300exp) on myself and my character was in a state he couldn't do anything of effort for the next 20 minutes.

Moritz
08-09-2007, 02:53 PM
I just limit the amount of magic and strength of my world(s).

rabkala
08-09-2007, 07:48 PM
Perhaps adding a few factors is needed.
Create a list of "Marks of Death" for the gods that might possibly bring someone back.


I have done this before in a crossover game. Everyone who was brought back had a purplish birthmark looking like the holy symbol of the god that brought them back (frequently on the face). Nastier side effects were planned for those brought back on numerous occasions.

Skylon
08-10-2007, 12:55 AM
Ressurrection as a plot element. What if the ressurrected gained a mark of some sort (as mentioned by a few people) which marked them as sleeper cells or living bombs or brainwashed zealots when activted. The mark apparently means nothing and magic detect detects magic (as should be no surprise to anyone as it seems to be a side effect of magical ressurrection.)

I kinda like the idea...

ronpyatt
08-10-2007, 08:05 AM
As a plot device, yes, I can see these ideas working out very well in home brewed worlds.

However, we are taking about Dungeons & Dragons. It seems a bit unfair to restrict/punish the resurrected/resurrectable more than what the books outline. The characters are the reasons we play D&D. D&D is deadly. When we loose them, we don't always want our characters to go away. Resurrection is part of the magic of D&D. Why make things any worse? These things were playtested, right? They should work in the given settings.

To make a completely blanketed statement that does not apply to all situations in all settings but should strike a cord... By making resurrection punishable, you're just being a bully GM. First you kill the character, then you make the player/pc pay for you killing them? That's called extortion.

Obviously this doesn't hold true in all cases, but from what I've read so far in this thread, I'd be afraid to have my character resurrected in some of your game worlds. If that was your intent, well, you succeeded.

Moritz
08-10-2007, 09:00 AM
Yep, it'd be "whine fest 2007" if it was any worse than what the books list.

Skylon
08-10-2007, 10:04 AM
In strictly a game setting you're absolutely right. These things were play-tested and any difficulty in resurrecting someone is already built into the game. It sucks when characters die and frequently you'd want to have them resurrected. The game, rightfully so, allows for this.

However, in strictly a role-playing sense (I use the term here to mean the storytelling side of the game) resurrection is way to common. If it is going to be common that's fine, but why not put an interesting spin on it to make for a more interesting story? Heroic acts seem far less heroic when the player knows that he can always be resurrected with no major penalty to his character.

I, obviously, come from the "more story than game" camp, though. Death should have much greater repercussions than a very temporary and minor set-back to the other players. Even if it is having all the drawbacks of being undead (because, let's face it, by definition ya are.)

TheYeti1775
08-10-2007, 10:32 AM
As a plot device, yes, I can see these ideas working out very well in home brewed worlds.

However, we are taking about Dungeons & Dragons. It seems a bit unfair to restrict/punish the resurrected/resurrectable more than what the books outline. The characters are the reasons we play D&D. D&D is deadly. When we loose them, we don't always want our characters to go away. Resurrection is part of the magic of D&D. Why make things any worse? These things were playtested, right? They should work in the given settings.

To make a completely blanketed statement that does not apply to all situations in all settings but should strike a cord... By making resurrection punishable, you're just being a bully GM. First you kill the character, then you make the player/pc pay for you killing them? That's called extortion.

Obviously this doesn't hold true in all cases, but from what I've read so far in this thread, I'd be afraid to have my character resurrected in some of your game worlds. If that was your intent, well, you succeeded.


In strictly a game setting you're absolutely right. These things were play-tested and any difficulty in resurrecting someone is already built into the game. It sucks when characters die and frequently you'd want to have them resurrected. The game, rightfully so, allows for this.

However, in strictly a role-playing sense (I use the term here to mean the storytelling side of the game) resurrection is way to common. If it is going to be common that's fine, but why not put an interesting spin on it to make for a more interesting story? Heroic acts seem far less heroic when the player knows that he can always be resurrected with no major penalty to his character.

I, obviously, come from the "more story than game" camp, though. Death should have much greater repercussions than a very temporary and minor set-back to the other players. Even if it is having all the drawbacks of being undead (because, let's face it, by definition ya are.)

I would have to agree with Skylon, it is more an Roleplaying flavor for this.
For me it's availability isn't restricted accept by finding the appropriate level priest and having the Diamonds on hand.
The one game world I mentioned, Valus, has the mark stuff detailed within the setting itself.

I'm sorry if it would scare you playing in one of my campaigns, but many feel that the availability of bringing someone back to life should be one of trial else you get that "Insert More Quarters" feeling.

Farcaster
08-10-2007, 12:17 PM
However, we are taking about Dungeons & Dragons. It seems a bit unfair to restrict/punish the resurrected/resurrectable more than what the books outline. The characters are the reasons we play D&D. D&D is deadly. When we loose them, we don't always want our characters to go away. Resurrection is part of the magic of D&D. Why make things any worse? These things were playtested, right? They should work in the given settings.

I would agree that there is traditionally far more combat in Dungeons and Dragons than most other roleplaying games. It plays a central and critical role to the character's advancement, and so yeah, D&D would have the potential of being more lethal than say, ST:TNG, where the challenge for the character's is more intellectual and when they mess up, everyone dies ;)

However, at the same time, I can't recall any other RPG I have played where death is so completely trivial. And once a character gets past a certain level, death is as trivial as getting your coin purse swiped. I don't buy the argument that WotC produced a perfect (play-tested) game. In fact, one of the first rules of D&D has always been that all the rules are optional and up to the purview of the DM.

I'm not trying to suggest that resurrection should be made completely unavailable to PCs, but I do think that there must be some middle ground to be discovered that makes resurrection feel more special and reserved.


By making resurrection punishable, you're just being a bully GM. First you kill the character, then you make the player/pc pay for you killing them? That's called extortion.See, that's one of the things that players sometimes throw out that bother me. If something bad happens to their character, it must be the DMs fault. He made it happen after all. It couldn't have anything to do with a bad decision on their part. I submit to you, that there are basically four reasons a character can die and only one of those has anything to do with DM-fault:

The character died because the DM created an encounter that he meant for the PCs to overcome directly and not avoided, but the encounter was way too challenging. (DM-Fault)
The character died because the DM created an overpowering encounter that should have been bypassed by avoiding the encounter, talking their way out of it, surrendering or fleeing, but the PCs chose to confront the challenge directly. (Player-Fault)
The character died because of a series of flummoxed rolls by the player or a series of lucky rolls by the DM during a balanced encounter. (Game System Fault)
The character died because the story demanded it. For instance, the paladin boldly sacrifices himself to save his friends, his family, his kingdom. This generally comes at the conclusion of a campaign and should generally be reserved. For the player, this kind of death might actually be the ultimate fulfillment of their character's life. In this case, it should generally be a player/DM collaboration. (Story-Driven)Without destroying the feeling of randomness that the system brings, there is nothing that can be done for the "Game System Fault," but making resurrections a little more special and harder to come by at all levels helps the players be a little more cautious and avoid those "Player-Fault" situations.

Ed Zachary
08-10-2007, 12:39 PM
I'm sorry if it would scare you playing in one of my campaigns, but many feel that the availability of bringing someone back to life should be one of trial else you get that "Insert More Quarters" feeling.

As a DM, fearing that my group may have a problem ahead, I just gave them a second "Insert Another Quarter" scroll.

Sure beats telling a player to get lost because their character died.

Ed Zachary
08-10-2007, 12:51 PM
However, at the same time, I can't recall any other RPG I have played where death is so completely trivial. And once a character gets past a certain level, death is as trivial as getting your coin purse swiped. I don't buy the argument that WotC produced a perfect (play-tested) game. In fact, one of the first rules of D&D has always been that all the rules are optional and up to the purview of the DM.

I played in a high level game where the characters were from 14th to 17th levels. Depending on the night we had from four to eight players. One of our targets was "The Tomb of the Undead Sorcerers".

When the first two characters died, we recovered their bodies and Raised them. Our only loss was in some firepower that caused us to retreat sooner than later, and very quickly. We could not recover the body of the third character that died and retreated running our asses off. The player created a new character a bit weaker than what he had. The next day that dead character was a Lich just like the rest of the Undead we were fighting. He had all that characters abilities, items, and knowledge of the other characters. Through that killer adventure three characters died and couldn't be recovered.

With Raise Dead and Resurrection you must recover the body. With Clone you don't even need the body. When my epic level spell casters kill a powerful enemy, I try to finish the deed with Soul Bind. Our DM then learned that trick and Soul Binded one of our characters. During our epic level campaign of titans, we were also negotiating a prisoner swap... our ally for three bound bad guys.

Moritz
08-10-2007, 01:24 PM
I'm not trying to suggest that resurrection should be made completely unavailable to PCs, but I do think that there must be some middle ground to be discovered that makes resurrection feel more special and reserved.


Actually, I totally agree with this. I don't hand out scrolls of raise dead like candy.

But by sticking to the core rules and cutting down on magic item or high level cleric availability, reducing the economy (diamond potential) or list in your house rules that resurrection/raise dead is only allowed on certain days or what ever details you want. That should be enough.

Or, there's always "Perma Death".

Tell your players, Don't be stupid, don't run into every room screaming "SPOON!" or what ever it is they yell, and make sure they understand that death is permanent, that should they see the need, RUN AWAY.

shilar
08-10-2007, 02:37 PM
And remind the players that all resurection spells are player choice. In other words take your noble sacrafice to the other side and use it to buy a one way ticket to your final reward. Role something new and jump back in. To me most characters would love to move on, and would need a very compelling reason to come back.

rabkala
08-10-2007, 07:24 PM
I completely agree with the insert quarter feel of resurrection. For years I have used a house rule: A player that suffers a character death or wishes to scrap a living character, can bring in a new character two levels below the parties average level. When a character dies, the power of the group is diminished. Long drawn out quests to resurrect a character are usually not planned for in the middle of an adventure. For me, I look to merely inconvenience them a bit instead of making them lose levels. I also want them to know that bringing somebody back from the dead shouldn't be an everyday occurrence like buying an ale at the pub. A player that brought on his characters death by intentional stupidity, probably won't be worthy of a resurrection.

Moritz
08-12-2007, 03:14 PM
I completely agree with the insert quarter feel of resurrection. For years I have used a house rule: A player that suffers a character death or wishes to scrap a living character, can bring in a new character two levels below the parties average level.

I had a similar rule:

8. Creating new characters: If a party member chooses to create a new character (due to death or just desire), then the new character will be created one level below the average of the total active party members. That new character will be based on the same template as standard rules note. Due to the leveling up of other characters, the new character will be given a random magic item of equal or lesser value to the average of the party.

TheYeti1775
08-13-2007, 11:46 AM
Maybe bring back the old Con rule for raising from 1E.
Don't drop the Con like it used to, but bring back the only as many times as you have Con.

I would alter it to being only as many times as you have a Con Bonus (18 would be 4 times back max).

Argent
08-14-2007, 11:55 AM
Bringing someone back from the dead should be something amazing. I usually try and make it into a role-playing moment for the players by making them have to justify the need for it to the druid/cleric in question. Yes, the druid/cleric can do it, but why should he/she? What has this person done to deserve a second chance, why should he/she contravene the laws of nature for this particular person?

I've also had it set where the Raise Dead is cast along with a Geas spell of some sort. So now the Raised character must show thanks for his/her second chance by completing a quest for the deity in question.

So I don't always make Raise Dead/Resurrection hard to find, I just attach role-playing strings to make them interesting and/or special.

Ed Zachary
08-14-2007, 12:27 PM
It seems to me that most people are trying to figure out what would make sense in a real world with magic rather than what would work best in a friggin' game where player interest is the most important thing.

If the other players recover the body and can afford the spell, let them bring the character back!

Argent
08-14-2007, 12:39 PM
It seems to me that most people are trying to figure out what would make sense in a real world with magic rather than what would work best in a friggin' game where player interest is the most important thing.

If the other players recover the body and can afford the spell, let them bring the character back!

I don't think anyone is trying to stop players from bringing back their characters, Ed. The focus seems to be on making the moment mean a little more than hitting the reset button or restarting from the last save point. D&D goes into great detail about its cosmology and how each religion views life/death. Shouldn't those points of view factor in when role-playing an encounter? Shouldn't getting a Raise Dead from a cleric of Wee Jas be different from getting a Resurrection from a druid of Silvanus?

It is a role-playing game, and imo, means and opportunity should only be part of bringing a character back from the dead.

Farcaster
08-14-2007, 12:46 PM
That's not exactly it, Ed. Its not a matter of trying to make sense of resurrection in the context of the real world. For me, at least, it is a matter of trying to increase dramatic tension in a story. In the first few levels, I think that tension is there. Having to spend five thousand gold could bankrupt the party or mean selling a coveted magic item. It also means the character is going to loose a level. But, in a high level game, death is trivial. The characters will generally always be resurrected by means of True Rez, and the 25,000 gold they spend to do that barely registers as a slight sting.

So, when it doesn't really sting so much anymore, the character's have no fear of death. The dramatic tension of a difficult encounter is somewhat diminished. To make matters work, in the fantasy context, it makes little sense that a priest would so lightly restore the character's back to life over and over again, perhaps multiple times even in the span of a single month. Just as a cleric wouldn't go around casting Miracle at every opportunity, the ability to bring back someone from the dead should be treated more reverently than the typical buff.

ronpyatt
08-15-2007, 12:30 AM
I must be used to a different set of D&D players, because the ones I've been dealing with for the past 20+ years don't really care what the DM makes of resurrection. They care about loosing their character; the GM's story be danged. (no offense)

Don't get me wrong, I agree that resurrection in a fantasy story should be an epic event, challenging the party, traumatic, not easily come by, and not taken lightly. However, we're talking about D&D. Character death, however temporary, is part and parcel to the design of the game. As far as I can tell, D&D does not really trivialize it to the extent that some GMs seem to be making it. There is a cost built into the system. Heroes are worth the gold it costs to raise them. (Even evil heroes?)

Changing the availability of resurrection in the game to fit your story is cool. If you are a generous GM, where gold pours forth, then yeah, making resurrection harder to get makes sense.

I like the kind of games that bring out the story of heroes and prefer to play in those kinds of games, but when it comes to D&D, which isn't really like classic fantasy stories, Players tend to expect the rules to work as expected, even when they're not playing heroes.

I've played in games where GMs restrict resurrection. Those were great games, in my opinion, but they didn't last long. Contrast that with the GMs I've played under that have had a resurrection cleric at every crossroad: campaigns went on for years.

When a player wants to go all out and hack-n-slash through something, it's nice to be able to get it out of their system.

I wonder how the big $100 dungeon campaign setting handles resurrection?

Ed Zachary
08-15-2007, 07:40 AM
That's not exactly it, Ed. Its not a matter of trying to make sense of resurrection in the context of the real world. For me, at least, it is a matter of trying to increase dramatic tension in a story. In the first few levels, I think that tension is there. Having to spend five thousand gold could bankrupt the party or mean selling a coveted magic item. It also means the character is going to loose a level. But, in a high level game, death is trivial. The characters will generally always be resurrected by means of True Rez, and the 25,000 gold they spend to do that barely registers as a slight sting.

You've missed what I've been saying. First of all the cost in material components should be higher (about 50kgp). Second the spell should be more difficult to cast, say eight hours rather than ten minutes. And you're wrong about it being automatic for high level characters, unless as a DM you don't properly challenge the characters (like the dragon that should've killed your party). My epic party has spells like Mord's Disjunction and Soul Bind used against it by the DM.

Lastly you want consequences... the caster of the spell is free to add any Geas or Quest he sees fit as a condition, or can price gouge desperate characters who can afford to pay more. A smart DM can really get nasty. Once I had an NPC Raise a dead character, and returned the character after a Wizard associate of the Priest possessed him with Magic Jar. Be creative, be nasty, but don't take the lazy way out and be restrictive.


So, when it doesn't really sting so much anymore, the character's have no fear of death. The dramatic tension of a difficult encounter is somewhat diminished. To make matters work, in the fantasy context, it makes little sense that a priest would so lightly restore the character's back to life over and over again, perhaps multiple times even in the span of a single month. Just as a cleric wouldn't go around casting Miracle at every opportunity, the ability to bring back someone from the dead should be treated more reverently than the typical buff.

See above, no high level spells should be cast lightly by high level priests or any other spellcaster. The player who does not fear the death of his character likely has a wussie for a DM.

Ed Zachary
08-15-2007, 07:42 AM
I must be used to a different set of D&D players, because the ones I've been dealing with for the past 20+ years don't really care what the DM makes of resurrection. They care about loosing their character; the GM's story be danged.

Exactly.

And a good DM will make obtaining high level spells interesting, challenging, costly, and somewhat dangerous.

RealmsDM
08-22-2007, 05:50 PM
Just read this in the last (very last) issue of Dragon... what about Last Rites? Having your PCs take the time to prepare for their possible deaths makes sense.

Ghezryln
08-26-2007, 03:30 PM
Just read this in the last (very last) issue of Dragon... what about Last Rites? Having your PCs take the time to prepare for their possible deaths makes sense.

Like having our 8th level characters trapped in a ruined tower, hunted by a Young Adult Red Dragon flying overhead, who is supported by a group of nasty NPCs who want to kill us, and run by a cruel and sadistic DM who likes killing characters and eating babies?

Time to find me some good old time religion!

Ed Zachary
08-26-2007, 03:59 PM
That "Young Adult" just aged into an adult.

Quit your whining, or they'll be two of them!

PhishStyx
08-26-2007, 05:34 PM
That's enough of that, Ed.

Typhon
08-26-2007, 06:07 PM
Ummm, PhishStyx... Ed is the DM of that game, and he was joking.

I hope.

Ed Zachary
09-03-2007, 02:26 AM
That's enough of that, Ed.

If you're interested in seeing what the Young Adult Red Dragon is doing (other than killing Moritz), or how the player characters are preparing to fight it, check it out at the play by post folder.

Moritz
09-04-2007, 11:15 AM
If you're interested in seeing what the Young Adult Red Dragon is doing (other than killing Moritz), or how the player characters are preparing to fight it, check it out at the play by post folder.

I'll bet by this time Moadin is total road kill. I went away for the holiday weekend and haven't had a chance to keep up with the postings. :)

Ed Zachary
09-04-2007, 07:23 PM
I'll bet by this time Moadin is total road kill. I went away for the holiday weekend and haven't had a chance to keep up with the postings. :)

Not yet, but that will happen soon enough.

rabkala
09-04-2007, 09:42 PM
When you do kill off his character, could you post the graphic details here? Then we can poke fun of him. Perhaps, we could even suggest painfully long nearly impossible ways to get that character brought back.

Ed Zachary
09-05-2007, 05:05 AM
When you do kill off his character, could you post the graphic details here? Then we can poke fun of him. Perhaps, we could even suggest painfully long nearly impossible ways to get that character brought back.

Sure... Moritz' posts #1168 & #1180 in the play by post thread.


Moadin, being the neutral good dwarf that he is, sees the dragon approaching and grumbles something about 'new plan sucks'. His feet propel him forward toward the approach and he starts yelling. "HEY, YOU BIG DUMB DRAGON, OVER HERE." as he is running away from the group, "COME ON, COME AND GET ME."

Moadin is running 45 degrees to the left of the tower. Hoping to put distance between him and his group also trying to distract the dragon. Eventually if he can, he'll cut toward the tower, hoping to be able to get to it, but it is doubtful even to him that he's going to make it.

"COME GET ME YOU BIG UGLY WYRM!"


Coming to a screeching halt, Moadin looks up at the dragon that landed between him and the tower. There's a sudden perspective to all of this and he considers his options. He keeps his shield up, and readies his next move, depending on what the dragon does.

It was over quickly for the hapless dwarf. But instead of keeping him dead I had the bad guys trade his body for two prisoners (third time the party lost its prisoners) and their treasure (second time the party lost all their treasure).

PhishStyx
09-07-2007, 03:33 PM
If you're interested in seeing what the Young Adult Red Dragon is doing (other than killing Moritz), or how the player characters are preparing to fight it, check it out at the play by post folder.

As it happens, I virtually never even look at the Hosted Forums section.

Ed Zachary
09-07-2007, 04:56 PM
As it happens, I virtually never even look at the Hosted Forums section.

Well, that's where it is if you want to find it.

DrAwkward
09-13-2007, 09:42 AM
I agree that raise/res is a bit too accessible, but it also advances the plot when the villians can keep coming back just as easily.

What if when a character accepts a raise/res the god used has the right to charge them with a Geas/Quest? It would be a task that advances the diety's goals, and the god might even waive the right most of the time - especially for folks that advance those goals naturally. Raising a character of a different faith, or uncompatable alignment would have a price to pay in "community service".

Really, when a DM hands out a quest/geas it means "go do this adventure" and when the party is in the middle of something, you don't use it. It really doesn't make it an "extra cost" but it would make it feel like there was more too it than just a bag of gems and ten minutes.