Spells that revive the dead [Archive] - Wizards Community

Spells that revive the dead [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
cmrscorpio
07-09-05, 08:57 PM With the exception of when we play Call of Cthulhu :devil:, my player's characters rarely die. However, when they do die (usually because of a series of bad die rolls), they moan and complain incessantly if there is no one available to cast True Resurrection for the price of doing some piddly little easy side quest (because, quite understandable, no one want to be out of the action for much longer than that).

And I completely understand their feelings. It is a big deal having to lose a level. All that hard work of killing monsters and defeating puzzles and traps makes it a jagged pill to swallow if you are forced to lose a level.

My campaigns rarely reach the higher levels of gameplay (12+) simply due to the fact that most of my players prefer the lower, development levels, and by the time we reach the upper levels, most of the players are itching to try out new character concepts. For this reason, I am instituting the following house-rule:

Raise Dead, Resurrection, and other spells that revive the dead no longer cause the recipient to loose a level. True Resurrection is still the only way to revive a character whose body has been destroyed.
lostone
07-10-05, 09:44 AM Sounds like a good house rule for your situation.
Hengwrt Ellesmere
07-10-05, 04:27 PM Rather than losing a level, you could just have coming back from the dead slow down the acquisition of future xp. That way a player can always keep contributing at full strength once he's raised, but he just won't get as much experience as his companions who managed to stay alive. This "experience debt" system is what they use online in EQII. It makes death a pain, but not so much that you want to abandon the character.
Millennium
07-11-05, 09:45 AM You might want to consider having characters lose a point of Con after being resurrected (similar to what happens for first-level characters) rather than losing a level. This is the way it used to be done in older editions, and I think I prefer it. This ensures that death still has an impressive sting, but it's easier to deal with than losing an entire level. Read any language dealing with level loss through death as dealing with Con loss instead, so True Resurrection doesn't cost a point of Con, classes which require you to have lost a level through death require you to have lost a point of Con instead, and so forth.

Note: In some ways, this system actually causes more of a penalty to high-level characters in the short term. At high levels, you can actually lose more hit points through a Con drop than you would through just losing a level. This time comes sooner for spellcasters than warriors, because their Hit Dice are poor. However, high-level characters can also replace these Con points more easily, so it balances out somewhat. In any case, you said you didn't do a lot of high-level play, so it's probably a wash in your case.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cmrscorpio 07-09-05, 08:57 PM	With the exception of when we play Call of Cthulhu :devil:, my player's characters rarely die. However, when they do die (usually because of a series of bad die rolls), they moan and complain incessantly if there is no one available to cast True Resurrection for the price of doing some piddly little easy side quest (because, quite understandable, no one want to be out of the action for much longer than that). And I completely understand their feelings. It is a big deal having to lose a level. All that hard work of killing monsters and defeating puzzles and traps makes it a jagged pill to swallow if you are forced to lose a level. My campaigns rarely reach the higher levels of gameplay (12+) simply due to the fact that most of my players prefer the lower, development levels, and by the time we reach the upper levels, most of the players are itching to try out new character concepts. For this reason, I am instituting the following house-rule: Raise Dead, Resurrection, and other spells that revive the dead no longer cause the recipient to loose a level. True Resurrection is still the only way to revive a character whose body has been destroyed.
lostone 07-10-05, 09:44 AM	Sounds like a good house rule for your situation.
Hengwrt Ellesmere 07-10-05, 04:27 PM	Rather than losing a level, you could just have coming back from the dead slow down the acquisition of future xp. That way a player can always keep contributing at full strength once he's raised, but he just won't get as much experience as his companions who managed to stay alive. This "experience debt" system is what they use online in EQII. It makes death a pain, but not so much that you want to abandon the character.
Millennium 07-11-05, 09:45 AM	You might want to consider having characters lose a point of Con after being resurrected (similar to what happens for first-level characters) rather than losing a level. This is the way it used to be done in older editions, and I think I prefer it. This ensures that death still has an impressive sting, but it's easier to deal with than losing an entire level. Read any language dealing with level loss through death as dealing with Con loss instead, so True Resurrection doesn't cost a point of Con, classes which require you to have lost a level through death require you to have lost a point of Con instead, and so forth. Note: In some ways, this system actually causes more of a penalty to high-level characters in the short term. At high levels, you can actually lose more hit points through a Con drop than you would through just losing a level. This time comes sooner for spellcasters than warriors, because their Hit Dice are poor. However, high-level characters can also replace these Con points more easily, so it balances out somewhat. In any case, you said you didn't do a lot of high-level play, so it's probably a wash in your case.