What happens when your players can't resurrect their dead?

[Fwiffo86]

If you explain to your players that death is death. That clerics either cannot, or do not, raise the dead except in the most perilous and extraneous circumstances, what do you think would be the most likely response game play wise?

Raise Dead, Resurrection, etc. become unavailable to players to wield themselves, or are prohibitively expensive (excessive gold cost, negotiate a peace treated with the Orcish hordes, kill the recently unmasked lich) that it becomes nearly impossible to do.

Is this being too hard on players? I ask because my group likes this mentality. They are more cautious, and approach battles with plans (which sometimes work exactly as planned), and enter combat with exit strategies if it all starts to fall apart.

[WickerNipple]

If that's what the group wants, I can't see any particular problem with it.

The vast majority of my low level play is essentially this way anyway... no one has the spell or could afford to buy it. *shrug* There goes Johnny. Who wants his +1 shield?

In a more mature group it just provides more/different opportunities for roleplaying. If this is yer bag, do it.

[m4th]

If your players like it, go for it. 1st and 2nd editions D&D were more brutal than 3rd and 4th in terms of fragile PCs and player death, so this definitely appeals to players who feel that 5th is too soft.

For a no-rez D&D game, you need players who are willing to examine combat situations in terms of "survival in pursuit of a larger goal" instead of "total annihilation", and a DM who is willing and capable of making combat encounters that can end before total annihilation.

Assuming you have both of those conditions, which it sounds like you do, I would not make any further changes to the mechanics/spells/threat level of the standard game to compensate for the increased risk of perma-death. If your players want to play a harder game, don't make it softer around the edges.

In fact, I would make other elements of gameplay harder to reinforce the harshness of PC death, although not necessarily make actual combat harder. For example, if a player dies during a dungeon delve and the party goes back to town for burial, make sure that the dead character's possessions get distributed along his background instead of fueling the party coffers. Give the dead player partial control of the monsters for the remainder of the dungeon instead of making a new character. Make the new character come back 1 or 2 levels lower unless the dead player did an exceptional job of taxing the party's resources, forcing him to fight harder for you if he wants to rejoin the party at full strength.

All in all, I think this is a fun change that reinforces 5th edition's theme of Mortal Heroes. All games, especially table-top and board games, are only ever as hard as the players want them to be, so no, I don't think it is being too hard on your players.

[JusticeZero]

I have no problem with it, but raising the dead is easy because dying is easy. When save-or-die effects are flying every which way and the entire range of death's door is a sliver of the damage numbers being thrown around, you expect to need to bring people back a lot. Make it harder to be dropped dead instead. I'm planning to use "Zero is a speedbump" myself - that is, you cannot be brought from positive numbers to any lower than -1 by a single attack, nor can you be raised from negative numbers to any higher than 0 hp by a single heal. (Also, they are exhausted and nauseated by their trip to negatives.). If someone drops, you have to go stabilize and evacuate them; if you can't ambulance them out before they run out of death's door rounds, they are irrevocably gone. Enemies don't typically CdG anyone or use rapidfire AoE attacks. Still pondering how to soften AOE attacks to avoid accidental reapage.

[Tholomyes]

I never like raise dead and spells like that, but I'm also coming from a perspective where I don't like to kill characters unless they do something really stupid, it's in a major climactic battle (or even if not battle, other climactic event), and/or the player is OK with it. And even the first one is a little iffy. Basically my feelings are: Have Fun, Play in character, Don't go (too) off the wall. Roughly in that order. In some cases, having to play more cautiously can be fun, as it can encourage tactical and strategic play. In other cases having to play more cautiously can be not so good, as it can get overly punitive, and can discourage risk taking, which can be fun (again, if not too off the wall. Grabbing the Staff of Ultimate Knowledge that the Tomb Guardian is protecting, and running as fast as you can, out of the crypt can be fun. Jumping off a bridge "just 'cause... What? I'm CN, it says so on my sheet" isn't).

Overall though, I like character deaths to be important. Dying against the Big Bad of the campaign, or standing at a chokepoint, holding off demonic hordes, just long enough for the rest of the party to escape are the types of character deaths you remember, and don't feel bad about, as a player. However, when Raise Dead comes up, it minimizes the sacrifice. Would Star Trek II be nearly as good if you could just do a quick and cheap Raise Dead on Spock? (I know there's ST III, but that'd be what I'd consider a campaign arc's worth right there, to do that, as I feel Raise Dead, ect should be. Miraculous events that require a campaign arc)

[A Stray Cat]

My first AD&D character in a real campaign was killed by a dragon, and his return to the living involved a series of adventures for the rest of the party. I wasn't left in the cold though. My DM ran his disembodied spirit through some adventures as well. It turned out that the ancient sword we had procured had some serious magic in it and had preserved his soul. (It had also preserved the soul of an ancient warrior, the former owner of the weapon, which led to an interesting resurrection to say the least!) Mechanics took a back seat to story, and it was glorious. One character ended up having a simulacrum as a henchman, and my character was sometimes possessed by an ancient chieftain. It's been so long now that I can't remember how we got him out of my character's body and laid to rest.

[Pex]

It is unfair to the warriors because they are more likely to die since they're the ones who take the brunt of the damage. Spellcasters can stay far away to do nasty things and have defenses against enemy spellcasters doing the same thing. Damage spells becomes deadlier. If as a response to this scenario the party fights less, then the warrior players will rightfully wonder why they are playing a warrior character at all.

It is unfair to the cleric because he now has more pressure on himself to heal. While even with normal rules there is some pressure, it's more of an emotional pressure. Just knowing once dead your character is gone will affect players' perceptions even if in a normal game their character wouldn't be raised anyway for whatever reason. The finality of it will have players demand more healing from the cleric than they normally would.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I played in a game (2e that later, years later turned into a 4e game) where raise dead spells didn't exist except for a true resurrection. Outside of that, if you died in a certain way, say heroically or sacrificing yourself and a deity favored you... Then you would be hit with a reincarnation type effect.

Roll up a new character and replace your old PC in the battle with this one at 3/4 max HP.

Think the regeration from Doctor Who.

I came back from being a Human Fighter to being a Goliath Wizard*.

* ability scores are in my groups usually were determined by class.

[unwise]

It's interesting to hear the perspectives in this thread as my experience is very different. In 30 years of DMing, no PC has ever been resurrected in one of my games. Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever seen it happen as a player either.

Resurrection is just not on our radar. Coming back from the dead for anything other than a unique plot related reason just makes world building too tricky for us. If you cannot assassinate the king, if a messenger cannot be killed before giving a vital warning, if the villain can just come back, if the heroes sacrifice was just a temporary thing...It just makes for an oddly inconsistent world.

My players already try and cure every crippled or blinded person that they meet. It is hard enough dealing with that. If you let them use spells RAW then there would never be any disabled people in their world. If they could do resurrection as easily as written, it would have dire implications for the world and the campaign. If the PC clerics are the only ones that can resurrect regularly, then why has the king not had them taken forcefully to the capital to stay in a gilded cage in case he or his family get hurt? Why are the PCs not inundated with requests from wealthy merchants wanting their beloved ones back?

The general guidelines for resurrection in our games are that:
- only some of the gods can or will do it (life, death and growth domains generally)
- it could start a war between the gods if some actively oppose it
- it is a high level spell that is a well kept secret. You don't just learn it from hitting the right level.
- the dead person must have the favor of both the church and their god
- the dead person must have an unfulfilled destiny
- the PCs need to pay a sum that would choke a horse, e.g. build a new temple, or upgrade a cathedrals mosaics and stain-glass.
- in one game, we added in the caveat that the person who killed them could not be alive. That led to some interesting quests for vengeance and I think worked well.

The times that we have come close to those criteria being met, the PCs have lost the body.

One of the other reasons we are harsh on resurrection is that when people think it is a likelihood, they do some really odd things. For instance, we had a guy attempt to control a magic item that they knew was cursed and he only had a 10% chance of succeeding without dying. He did it thinking he would just get resurrect if he failed. Unfortunately for him, his god said "if you care so little about your life, why should I?" and left him dead.

One thing I am toying with at the moment is toning down the other requirements, but ramping up the unfulfilled destiny/oath thing. So a player that adds in subplots like having their PC fall in love, swearing an oath of vengeance, or going on a quest to right an ancient wrong, all have plot armor against death. PCs are at their most vulnerable when they are not interesting.

[JusticeZero]

So for all these people who say that they don't have party members die, what do you do when some mook takes a swing at someone (because they're in reach) and crits for 74 points of damage when they only had 37 left?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So for all these people who say that they don't have party members die, what do you do when some mook takes a swing at someone (because they're in reach) and crits for 74 points of damage when they only had 37 left?

DBZ style rejuvenation chamber? :smalltongue:

[Fwiffo86]

My players already try and cure every crippled or blinded person that they meet. It is hard enough dealing with that. If you let them use spells RAW then there would never be any disabled people in their world. If they could do resurrection as easily as written, it would have dire implications for the world and the campaign. If the PC clerics are the only ones that can resurrect regularly, then why has the king not had them taken forcefully to the capital to stay in a gilded cage in case he or his family get hurt? Why are the PCs not inundated with requests from wealthy merchants wanting their beloved ones back?


This. I get alot of this from my players too. But then I remember, we aren't playing Eberron or Forgotten Realms. It's just not the world where you find a discarded +5 holy avenger in a water barrel *glaring at Neverwinter Nights*. I usually explain the following things to new players to my game....

- The ability to wield Divine Magic is exceptionally rare, though there are priests and acolytes a plenty. Figure for every MAJOR temple (not some out in the boondocks little building) there is only a 30% chance that an actual magic wielding priest is residing there. Divine magic is often viewed by the population as awe inspiring, and miracle granting. When you can cure an illness with a touch, or heal a grievously wounded man with the same touch, the population begins to solicit you.

- Arcane magic is rare, and often terrifying to local populations of any sort. Often met with distrust at best, and abject terror being the more common thought. Who isn't afraid of a man who can throw fire from his hands? Blatant use of magic that is clearly not related to a Church has a very real potential to get you lynched by locals. Since only one out of thousands have the capacity to actually learn and master arcane magic, combined with the general distrust of it, keeps the numbers low, and explains why Magic is taught Master to Apprentice.

- It is far easier to arm a man with steel than it is to arm him with magic. It is far more likely that a ruler will pay to arm his troops with sword, armor and siege weapons than it is for him to put his trust into a single man who can slay people with a simple word. Rulers often keep such people as far away as they can, and due to their relative population insignificance, this rarely becomes a problem.

- There are no statistics for Gods. Gods do things mortals cannot comprehend because they are beyond them. No mortal, no matter how powerful they think they are, has any chance against a god. When a God deems it necessary, they will intervene and never directly. An avatar of a Nature god, would cause barren land to sprout a lush forest, simply by walking through it (as an example). Mortals are given visions (or delusions), not answers. You cannot question gods and expect direct answers. Such thoughts are nothing but arrogance and folly.

Basically, when viewed from the scope of the Entire population, vs. the population of Player Characters, the world is far simpler. Player Characters represent the exception to the rules. They wield arcane might and divine power, they slay hundreds of enemies and never tire, they sing songs that stir the blood, they penetrate the deepest darkest labyrinths and escape with treasures that haven't seen the light of day in a thousand years. They are meant to be the ones who take on the dragons, that explore the long forgotten places, and deal with the invasions from the places between places. It is what makes them special. It is what makes them Heroes.

With the proper application of generalizing the rest of the world, the players will begin to understand that there isn't a spell casting priest in every temple, that Mage Towers are located in hard to reach places on purpose, that Hordes are held off by armies and not single individuals. Magical treasures become things of wonder and amazement, all crafted by long dead hands for specific purposes (Dragonlances as an example) etc.

I read forums for much of 3.5 and into 4e. And what I saw more often than not was a bunch of people who were breaking down the game into simple or difficult math, looking for ways to abuse/break/manipulate the rules to create characters that devastate the worlds they tread. And I'll be completely honest... for a long time, it completely ruined the game for me. D&D no longer was about epic heroes fighting the fights most people couldn't, but a number crunching combat simulation trying to build the single most powerful individual ever. Which in the end, is what I like about 5e. Its simple, easy to learn, and it takes genuine effort to make a world shattering character. And even when you do, the common lynch mob still has a chance to get you if you get out of control.

[PinkysBrain]

If you explain to your players that death is death. That clerics either cannot, or do not, raise the dead except in the most perilous and extraneous circumstances, what do you think would be the most likely response game play wise?

Personally I'd not play melee ... especially not a melee rogue.

I'd also pay more attention to and consequently notice instances of DM carebearing (I know the way dice work a little too well to believe in the "preparation" conceit, it helps but not nearly enough ... games without resurrection have more fudging).

[Fwiffo86]

Personally I'd not play melee ... especially not a melee rogue.

I'd also pay more attention to consequently notice instances of DM carebearing (I know the way dice work a little too well to believe in the "preparation" conceit, it helps but not nearly enough ... games without resurrection have more fudging).

:smallsmile: Did you see my post about what a Lich with Wish can do?

[PinkysBrain]

So for all these people who say that they don't have party members die, what do you do when some mook takes a swing at someone (because they're in reach) and crits for 74 points of damage when they only had 37 left?
Don't play with open rolls and magically never roll crits like that unless you think the situation deserves the character's death.

[TrexPushups]

Honestly how many diamonds worth 1000+ gp are there in the game world?

And how many are for sell easily? Make the material components matter and make them difficult to attain and now resurrection becomes something you have to work for instead of a simple deduction of 1000gp from a character sheet and a spell expenditure.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Honestly how many diamonds worth 1000+ gp are there in the game world?

And how many are for sell easily? Make the material components matter and make them difficult to attain and now resurrection becomes something you have to work for instead of a simple deduction of 1000gp from a character sheet and a spell expenditure.

Well assuming that the game world is anything like the real world then diamonds are quite common... The only reason why they are pricey in the real world is cause there is a huge trade making them that way.

Actually, come to think of it... They really need to change price of diamonds to pounds of diamonds. Price is relative after all. An area can say 1,000 lbs of diamond is only worth 10 gp...

[TrexPushups]

A single diamond worth 1000 gp could be rarer in the game world. In addition given their utility they are destroyed by both wizards and clerics with some frequency. Not to mention monsters and theives guilds stealing them.

So it is reasonable that finding an appopriate diamond would take effort and could be a challenge beyond the party or require an adventure.

As an aside I love the use of economics to enable spells to use less of your diamond horde for spell casting once you corner the market. ;)

[Person_Man]

"When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum." If you're not killed outright, you're unconscious and start making Saving Throws vs. Death, and it usually takes 3 rounds for you to die or stabilize. In addition, anyone can stabilize you with an Action and a DC 10 Wisdom (Medicine) check or magical healing.

So basically it's pretty easy to at level 1-3ish, since it's easy for enemies to reduce you to -10 to -20ish hit points with one attack. But once you get up to 30+ maximum hit points, its unlikely that any player would be killed unless the entire party is killed, the player is just reckless, or fighting a particularly high level Rogue or magic user.

Knowing this, if a player dies, I just let him die. We're not starting at levels 1-3 unless they want to suffer through the subterranean fantasy Vietnam phase of the game, and if they do, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

[Fwiffo86]

"When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum." If you're not killed outright, you're unconscious and start making Saving Throws vs. Death, and it takes at least 3 rounds for you to die or stabilize. Anyone can stabilize you with an Action and a DC 10 Wisdom (Medicine) check or magical healing.

So basically it's pretty easy to at level 1-3ish, since it's easy for enemies to reduce you to -10 to -20ish hit points with one attack. But once you get up to 30+ maximum hit points, its unlikely that any player would be killed unless the entire party is killed, the player is just reckless, or fighting a particularly high level Rogue or magic user.

Knowing this, if a player dies, I just let him die. We're not starting at levels 1-3 unless they want to suffer through the subterranean fantasy Vietnam phase of the game, and if they do, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Am I the only one who remembers that Monsters aren't always stupid? Downed PC? Finish them off... if they take damage (any damage) while downed, that adds 2 fails to the counter list. Or conversely, just actually stick a weapon through their face. Even feral intelligence will start eating if it isn't immediately threatened.

The "negative HP equal to HP is to prevent players from getting Vaporized instantly. At least that is my interpretation.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

"When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum." If you're not killed outright, you're unconscious and start making Saving Throws vs. Death, and it usually takes 3 rounds for you to die or stabilize. In addition, anyone can stabilize you with an Action and a DC 10 Wisdom (Medicine) check or magical healing.

So basically it's pretty easy to at level 1-3ish, since it's easy for enemies to reduce you to -10 to -20ish hit points with one attack. But once you get up to 30+ maximum hit points, its unlikely that any player would be killed unless the entire party is killed, the player is just reckless, or fighting a particularly high level Rogue or magic user.

Knowing this, if a player dies, I just let him die. We're not starting at levels 1-3 unless they want to suffer through the subterranean fantasy Vietnam phase of the game, and if they do, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

From memory...

Not at all.

When you are unconscious creatures get free crits and also when you take a hit you fail a death saving throw.

So a monster can kill you via massive damage or by hacking your poor little body up.

Edit: Rogue'd (no ninja or swordages yet)

[TheOOB]

I remember reading in the manual of the planes back in 3e that most souls cannot be resurrected(unless it's like right after they die), because they find peace in the afterlife, and they'll generally only return if there was something left for them to do. Further, diamonds may be a rare or even controlled substance in a world with resurrection.

[JusticeZero]

Am I the only one who remembers that Monsters aren't always stupid? Downed PC? Finish them off...
The "negative HP equal to HP is to prevent players from getting Vaporized instantly. At least that is my interpretation.
And if you have monsters wasting their action economy to vindictively destroy non-threats, then you need to accept that your party will be collecting diamonds and using a lot of raise/resurrect spells every time anyone important dies. Once a character has been mortally wounded, they pose no danger. That guy still standing swinging a sword or glowy fingers? Does. Deal with dangers first.

[TrexPushups]

Doesn't that equation change when the bad guys know the party has a cleric? Heck a truly savvy villain might try hit and run tactics where they drop kill and then have a minion try to take the body with them when they call the retreat.

[JusticeZero]

Well, they can, but if the enemy does that sort of thing, the next character is likely going to be "Whack II the Fighter, using the generic template".

[Fwiffo86]

And if you have monsters wasting their action economy to vindictively destroy non-threats, then you need to accept that your party will be collecting diamonds and using a lot of raise/resurrect spells every time anyone important dies. Once a character has been mortally wounded, they pose no danger. That guy still standing swinging a sword or glowy fingers? Does. Deal with dangers first.

How is it a waste preventing someone from being healed? You take one action to finish someone off? My players do it all the time. They make sure that their target is actually dead, not just down. That might be because I believe if the players can have such ready access to healing, so can their enemies.

So preventing someone from being healed and gotten back on their feet is hardly a waste.

hahahahahaha Action economy... LOL

[JusticeZero]

As noted, this is an issue for purely meta-pragmatic reasons - because when enemies start doing that, the party will either use Raise Dead regularly, exaggerating any issues you might have with the spell, or disconnect from your game.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I remember reading in the manual of the planes back in 3e that most souls cannot be resurrected(unless it's like right after they die), because they find peace in the afterlife, and they'll generally only return if there was something left for them to do. Further, diamonds may be a rare or even controlled substance in a world with resurrection.

It really depends on where they go. Not all PCs go to heaven.

Diamonds aren't exactly rare or controlled when you hit the level to plane shift. Unlimited number of planes? Hello plane of diamonds. :smalltongue:

When I create a PC I write out a will, I usually don't have my character accept a resurrection because of whatever reason. Of course I had a character that got addicted to being rezed, high level character with a high level cleric friend. :smallbiggrin:

[Person_Man]

Am I the only one who remembers that Monsters aren't always stupid? Downed PC? Finish them off... if they take damage (any damage) while downed, that adds 2 fails to the counter list. Or conversely, just actually stick a weapon through their face. Even feral intelligence will start eating if it isn't immediately threatened.

The "negative HP equal to HP is to prevent players from getting Vaporized instantly. At least that is my interpretation.

Combat in 5E is very deadly, and generally lasts 1-3ish rounds in most circumstances.

You need 3 failed Saving Throws vs Death in order to die. An attack can inflict 1 or 2 fails on you.

Presumably you have allies that can Stabalize or heal you, who can see if an enemy is trying to finish you off.

It's also not an intelligent tactic for intelligent creatures to finish off an unconscious enemy unless all of his allies are also dead or unconscious. Combat is quick and deadly. You need to kill the enemies who are still attacking you before they kill you, not kill the unconscious enemy out of spite.

So at mid-high levels, assuming that the PC has decent Con, unless multiple monsters gang up on a dying PC in order to kill him, it's unlikely to happen.

I'm not saying that it will never happen. I'm just saying that the rules are setup in such a way that death is easy at low levels, and unlikely at mid-high levels.

[1337 b4k4]

Once again, I can't help but point out that D&D used to have a solution to the "if you can raise everyone, then death is meaningless" problem. It was the System Shock roll, and you had to roll every time you were raised. If you failed, you were permanently dead. IIRC, there was also a permanent -1 CON penalty applied for each raising.

[TrexPushups]

After thinking it over an intelligent bad guy could use the threat of finishing off a downed PC to get the rest if the party to surrender or else. This works much better if resurrection is very hard.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

After thinking it over an intelligent bad guy could use the threat of finishing off a downed PC to get the rest if the party to surrender or else. This works much better if resurrection is very hard.

Well maybe, but I've seen this happen and the other players don't care if their party member dies.

I actually like when my characters have a dramatic or special death. Really freaked out the DM when my character leaned into the bbeg's sword when he was taken hostage... The rest of the party charged/magiked him to death in one round.

I think the DM was stunned haha.

[TrexPushups]

Well maybe, but I've seen this happen and the other players don't care if their party member dies.

I actually like when my characters have a dramatic or special death. Really freaked out the DM when my character leaned into the bbeg's sword when he was taken hostage... The rest of the party charged/magiked him to death in one round.

I think the DM was stunned haha.

That sounds like a good game session to me!

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That sounds like a good game session to me!

It really was, I bring my evil crafty DM style to use as a PC. Lots of fun.

[pwykersotz]

Well maybe, but I've seen this happen and the other players don't care if their party member dies.

I actually like when my characters have a dramatic or special death. Really freaked out the DM when my character leaned into the bbeg's sword when he was taken hostage... The rest of the party charged/magiked him to death in one round.

I think the DM was stunned haha.

Nice story, that's awesome. :smallbiggrin:

I find that my players care very much about other party members dying. So it's a YMMV issue. In one example the party Paladin dropped to negative, and a hobgoblin tried to coup-de-grace him, believing his frontline had the rest of the party in hand. The party NUKED that hobgoblin before the attack went off. It was glorious.

[Leon]

If that's what is know when you start the game then its what is used, if its sprung onto the player at a later time then yes there will most likely be problems.

Its what i liked about the 3.5 Iron Kingdoms, healing was dangerous, Resurrection was rare and you have to be more conservative and careful with adventuring rather than a revolving door afterlife.

[PinkysBrain]

If WotC really wanted to make coup de grace a suboptimal option they would have had to make killing unconscious people harder and/or have made putting someone back in the fight harder ... instead we have bonus action ranged healing spells and 2 melee hits while unconscious will kill you.

Downing someone lasts till the next turn of the cleric ... and the cleric will have him up without even having to give up much of his turn.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If WotC really wanted to make coup de grace a suboptimal option they would have had to make killing unconscious people harder and/or have made putting someone back in the fight harder ... instead we have bonus action ranged healing spells and 2 melee hits while unconscious will kill you.

Downing someone lasts till the next turn of the cleric ... and the cleric will have him up without even having to give up much of his turn.

Unless the cleric is dealing with other things at the moment.

Also not every cleric will be a healing cleric.

You know what, I want to take away the unconscious part of hitting 0 for PCs. Put in rules where you can lean against something or fall to the ground due to your wounds. The only action you can take is the same (death saving throws) until you stabilize or heal HP.

(I'm working on two death and dying houserules, this is one of them)

I think this will go a long way to getting rid of the stigma of returning to battle after being dropped to 0 HP. It will be more dramatic (you get to watch your party fight without you) and it will make more sense why you can just get up after being healed.

All the other rules (get hit = two failed saves) can be the same.

Or... (May have posted this before)

When you hit 0 HP you have all the same actions as before however each round you must make a death saving throw. 3 passes and you heal as normal. 3 fails and you die at the end of the encounter (or 5 minutes) do to you pushing it to far with your wounds.

If you want you can fall unconscious as per the normal rules.

This keeps people in the game and it will give enemies a really good reason to keep attacking a creature.
.

[Sartharina]

Unless the cleric is dealing with other things at the moment.

Also not every cleric will be a healing cleric.

You know what, I want to take away the unconscious part of hitting 0 for PCs. Put in rules where you can lean against something or fall to the ground due to your wounds. The only action you can take is the same (death saving throws) until you stabilize or heal HP.

(I'm working on two death and dying houserules, this is one of them)

I think this will go a long way to getting rid of the stigma of returning to battle after being dropped to 0 HP. It will be more dramatic (you get to watch your party fight without you) and it will make more sense why you can just get up after being healed.

All the other rules (get hit = two failed saves) can be the same.

Or... (May have posted this before)

When you hit 0 HP you have all the same actions as before however each round you must make a death saving throw. 3 passes and you heal as normal. 3 fails and you die at the end of the encounter (or 5 minutes) do to you pushing it to far with your wounds.

If you want you can fall unconscious as per the normal rules.

This keeps people in the game and it will give enemies a really good reason to keep attacking a creature.
.
I would absolutely hate this sort of thing. Endless Fights between immortal warriors that cannot die until everyone else is dead, go!

I'd rather have CDGs be relegated to cleanup only, not something you want to use against PCs. I'd rather have the game make it so that a PC taken out of the fight stays out of the fight, but can be restored when the dust settles.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I would absolutely hate this sort of thing. Endless Fights between immortal warriors that cannot die until everyone else is dead, go!

I'd rather have CDGs be relegated to cleanup only, not something you want to use against PCs. I'd rather have the game make it so that a PC taken out of the fight stays out of the fight, but can be restored when the dust settles.

*rolls eyes* overreacting much?

Yes because it is such an endless fight when you fail three rolls and die or I don't know... An enemy hits you for an automatic fail save?

This doesn't change death or dying really, you are just not unconscious for it. This can represent the physical part of HP while HP represent both physical and non-physical HP.

[PinkysBrain]

Unless the cleric is dealing with other things at the moment.

Also not every cleric will be a healing cleric.
You don't balance a game for edge cases.

[Tholomyes]

One thing I'm considering changing is the way healing interacts with creatures brought to 0 HP. I like the idea that once you're knocked out, you're out of the fight. As such, my current idea is that when you're healed back above 0, you're stabilized, and you gain HP back, but you're still unconscious. With Healing Word, especially, it just seems too easy to get back in a fight after you've been downed. Now, with the speed of combat being what it is, this may be unnecessary but I'll have to see, more first hand.

[hawklost]

The only rez spell that I would want to keep would be Revivify (Still costing the 300 gp though).

I would consider that like using Defibrillator on someone who went into cardiac arrest. The only difference is that you heal the wounds as well as start their heart.

[Fwiffo86]

Here's an option I have entertained but never put into practice. And I'm totally stealing this from GURPS....

What if you can't benefit from the same healing spell more than once per 24 hours? (between long rests of 8 hours)

Cure Wounds, Healing Word, healing pot... others if they have them. This would keep clerics from being healbots. I would think it would put more emphasis on the Fighter being in the front lines since he can heal himself somewhat. Especially if there is limited times they can be healed per day.

Just thinking out loud as it were. What do you think?

[obryn]

Just thinking out loud as it were. What do you think?
From everything I've heard about 5e combat, HP attrition is rapid.

I know in my playtest last summer, healing was necessary just to keep everyone up.

[Pex]

Here's an option I have entertained but never put into practice. And I'm totally stealing this from GURPS....

What if you can't benefit from the same healing spell more than once per 24 hours? (between long rests of 8 hours)

Cure Wounds, Healing Word, healing pot... others if they have them. This would keep clerics from being healbots. I would think it would put more emphasis on the Fighter being in the front lines since he can heal himself somewhat. Especially if there is limited times they can be healed per day.

Just thinking out loud as it were. What do you think?

Then everyone only adventures for one combat per day.

It's not a crime against humanity for a party to be at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day.

[Sartharina]

*rolls eyes* overreacting much?

Yes because it is such an endless fight when you fail three rolls and die or I don't know... An enemy hits you for an automatic fail save?

This doesn't change death or dying really, you are just not unconscious for it. This can represent the physical part of HP while HP represent both physical and non-physical HP.

The thing is, the "Unconscious" part is the important part - you're out of the fight, and not a threat. You're not being attacked anymore because the enemies need to focus on the rest of your team, who can still pull out a win and get you back on your feet without needing to blow thousands of GP on a res.

[PinkysBrain]

60 feet range bonus action heal ... damn skippy you're a threat.

[Sartharina]

Here's an option I have entertained but never put into practice. And I'm totally stealing this from GURPS....

What if you can't benefit from the same healing spell more than once per 24 hours? (between long rests of 8 hours)

Cure Wounds, Healing Word, healing pot... others if they have them. This would keep clerics from being healbots. I would think it would put more emphasis on the Fighter being in the front lines since he can heal himself somewhat. Especially if there is limited times they can be healed per day.

Just thinking out loud as it were. What do you think?Being only able to heal people with each spell once makes Clerics even MORE of a healbot, because they have to have ALL their spells prepared be healing spells, instead of opting to put in a few flexible healing spells, then invest in buffs and other spells. People don't heal because they have healing spells available - they heal because they're out of hitpoints. The fighter has a hard enough time staying on the front lines without enemies just ignoring them.

[ZeshinX]

To answer the original question simply, they create a new character.

To elaborate, death has gravitas in all campaigns/games I run. It's almost a permanent. The Raise Dead/Resurrection spells exist, but are impossibly hard to come by. They are not simply available to a cleric (or other divine caster) simply by reaching high enough level. The cleric (or other divine caster that can by the rules access these spells) must petition their deity for them. Many factors determine the results. Good role-playing, is the cleric adhering to the faith, is the intended recipient worthy by the standards of the faith, will the recipient's own deity, if different, allow this, does the recipient want to be returned (again, role-play), and more.

If the cleric is granted the spell, there is also always a hefty price to pay, personally. What that price is is always different, but it's usually something that will be with the cleric for the rest of their life. Even the recipient will be "changed" by the experience (more role-play, though I do impose the -1 CON, dying will always leave "scars").

I like players that tread carefully. I like the tension that arises during combat when players are really beat up, knowing death may be near. Some of the most intense and incredible moments come when the spectre of death is smiling at them from the corner of the room. So do my players.

[PinkysBrain]

I like players that tread carefully. I like the tension that arises during combat when players are really beat up, knowing death may be near. Some of the most intense and incredible moments come when the spectre of death is smiling at them from the corner of the room. So do my players.

How often do you keep the spectre at bay because you don't think the situation deserves a PC death?

[ZeshinX]

How often do you keep the spectre at bay because you don't think the situation deserves a PC death?

Sometimes I'll fudge a roll or villain decision, but I never eliminate the threat completely. The fudge typically is to give the players more time to find an out or solution (be that fleeing, a heroic sacrifice, or something the players surprise me with, with the latter often being the one that happens).

I find it's rare I need to do this though. My players are a crafty, resourceful bunch that always surprise me.

[JusticeZero]

I know in my playtest last summer, healing was necessary just to keep everyone up.That settles it that I won't be playing 5E then.

[pwykersotz]

That settles it that I won't be playing 5E then.

This opinion actually raises a question that I'm very interested to have an answer to. Is there a middleground between a healer being needed in the game and 'healing is a waste of time, just deal damage, it's more efficient'? Any ideas?

[Tholomyes]

This opinion actually raises a question that I'm very interested to have an answer to. Is there a middleground between a healer being needed in the game and 'healing is a waste of time, just deal damage, it's more efficient'? Any ideas? To be honest, I think 4e sat fairly well in that middle ground. The Second Wind/Short rest spending of healing surges (as well as the fact that HP was designed to be at or close to full each fight, meaning you didn't have to have a healer to fight off attrition) meant that a healer wasn't necessary, but since Fights weren't designed around attrition, but instead that each was supposed to be individually challenging, meant that it was usually better to have a healer, to make things less dangerous.

In addition, I feel that 5e could be easily made into one where having a healer isn't necessary, and (assuming the DMG contains alternate rules options as I suspect it will) it's possible that it could even be supported in Core. Really all you need to do is increase the number of hit-dice available to a character, and give them a way to spend it in combat (without too much of an opportunity cost, vs attacking/spellcasting)

[JusticeZero]

I like needing to spend effort on defense and keeping the party safe, but if you have to spend your time patching people up in combat, you have already lost the fight. Relying on healing results in some shockingly bad tactics and planning that I have no desire to be anywhere near.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I like needing to spend effort on defense and keeping the party safe, but if you have to spend your time patching people up in combat, you have already lost the fight. Relying on healing results in some shockingly bad tactics and planning that I have no desire to be anywhere near.

What edition of D&D made it where defense was ever a good option? Even 4e could turn into a game of rocket tag real quick.

Also in 3.5, the only defense was to sit in a pocket dimension and never come out until you were healed or had to. Rope trick and create demiplane spells.

I'm not saying relying on healing is good or bad but there has never been an edition of d&d made by WotC (including PF) where defense was the best answer.

Also 3.P had those Wanda of CLW that would heal everyone up quite fast.

[JusticeZero]

What edition of D&D made it where defense was ever a good option? Even 4e could turn into a game of rocket tag real quick.
Third. Mind Blank, Blur, Mirror Image, Grease, Color Spray, Entangle... All defensive options. There's lots of others.

Also 3.P had those Wanda of CLW that would heal everyone up quite fast.
Not during combat.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Third. Mind Blank, Blur, Mirror Image, Grease, Color Spray, Entangle... All defensive options. There's lots of others.

Not during combat.

Mind blank ain't a combat option. You do that out of combat in conjucture with demi plane. It is the only defensive spell (8th level mind you) that you put that's worth casting on a daily basis.

Grease, color spray, and entangle are offensive spells, not defensive spells. Grease can be used as slightly defensive to keep people from grappling you/party members but there are so many better offensive options at that point.

Blur and Mirror image are nice but you can do so much better with offensive spells.

[Pex]

This opinion actually raises a question that I'm very interested to have an answer to. Is there a middleground between a healer being needed in the game and 'healing is a waste of time, just deal damage, it's more efficient'? Any ideas?

Healing in combat as a combat tactic. That's what I do in my group's Pathfinder game. A player has done the math and depending on the combat I effectively double or triple the party's hit points. Because I go hog wild on defense the rest of the party can go hog wild on offense. We can and have defeated enemies two or three above our CR, not easily but successful. I don't only do healing. I cast buff spells. I cast the occasional attack spell. However, a party member dropping below 0 is one party member's worth of actions gone. I prevent that from happening as long as possible or remedy it as soon as possible when it does happen. As an Oracle of Life, I can heal as a move or swift action and still do something with my standard action, such as cast an attack spell, buff spell, or more healing in an emergency. The players know the value I bring. They miss it terribly in our other campaigns when I play characters with a different approach.

Edit: This tactic works in 3E, as I know from personal experience as well. I don't think it will work in 5E because the cleric does not have enough spells. He'll run out quickly if he keeps healing the party and will be bored. The amount of spells he gets in 5E (levels 1 to 5) is about the number of spells I'd have left in 3E for non-healing spells during/after I use the tactic. Forget about casting Heal as your only 6th level spell. 5E takes away the healing spells buffer.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Healing in combat as a combat tactic. That's what I do in my group's Pathfinder game. A player has done the math and depending on the combat I effectively double or triple the party's hit points. Because I go hog wild on defense the rest of the party can go hog wild on offense. We can and have defeated enemies two or three above our CR, not easily but successful. I don't only do healing. I cast buff spells. I cast the occasional attack spell. However, a party member dropping below 0 is one party member's worth of actions gone. I prevent that from happening as long as possible or remedy it as soon as possible when it does happen. As an Oracle of Life, I can heal as a move or swift action and still do something with my standard action, such as cast an attack spell, buff spell, or more healing in an emergency. The players know the value I bring. They miss it terribly in our other campaigns when I play characters with a different approach.

Edit: This tactic works in 3E, as I know from personal experience as well. I don't think it will work in 5E because the cleric does not have enough spells. He'll run out quickly if he keeps healing the party and will be bored. The amount of spells he gets in 5E (levels 1 to 5) is about the number of spells I'd have left in 3E for non-healing spells during/after I use the tactic. Forget about casting Heal as your only 6th level spell. 5E takes away the healing spells buffer.

See, in 3.5 with mild optimization and no real cheese I can do 4k damage by level 10 ish. Heal all you want but taking out a threat in 1 round by uber charging them to death (or control monster works too) is more effective than healing.

[Pex]

See, in 3.5 with mild optimization and no real cheese I can do 4k damage by level 10 ish. Heal all you want but taking out a threat in 1 round by uber charging them to death (or control monster works too) is more effective than healing.

When the DM does that against the party on a regular basis that is when to get a new DM. Such quirks of the system of specific combos of stuff are fine for theory, useful to watch out for to house rule away if need be because it bothers the players (including DM) too much, and a roll of my eyes at the constant 3E bashing but are irrelevant when it comes to actual play of the generic game.

[Tholomyes]

When the DM does that against the party on a regular basis that is when to get a new DM. Such quirks of the system of specific combos of stuff are fine for theory, useful to watch out for to house rule away if need be because it bothers the players (including DM) too much, and a roll of my eyes at the constant 3E bashing but are irrelevant when it comes to actual play of the generic game.I think the point being made wasn't that that's what the DM would do, but rather the opportunity cost weighed against healing, by the cleric. While cheese isn't really necessary, the point being made is that a cleric can do more for the party's longevity by spending actions and spells to take the enemies out of the fight (either with buffs placed on the party or with offensive spells), and thus preventing those enemies from dealing damage to the PCs. That decrease in damage taken tends to work out, in 3.x, to be greater than the amount healing provides, on a round by round and spell by spell basis. Thus on a measure of party longevity, you tend to do worse with in-combat healing than most other things a cleric could be doing.

[Knaight]

It's also not an intelligent tactic for intelligent creatures to finish off an unconscious enemy unless all of his allies are also dead or unconscious. Combat is quick and deadly. You need to kill the enemies who are still attacking you before they kill you, not kill the unconscious enemy out of spite.

If it's a protracted fight to the death, sure. On the other hand, hit and run tactics, particularly with ranged weapons, can outright favor it. It makes perfect sense to shoot down one member of the party, shoot their body until they're actually dead, get the heck out of the fight, then repeat the whole procedure. That's before getting into keeping particular people out of the fight, if there are healers around, and makes sense even if healing generally means extended bed rest.

[PinkysBrain]

If you play by the default rules downing PCs and not coup de gracing them will get downright silly. PC goes down, cleric gets his turn and spends a bonus action to cast healing world, PC's turn comes around and he spends half his movement to get up and can likely get off all of his attacks again since if you go down it's usually already a melee range fight ... so on average going down only cost the party 1/2 a turn (0 or 1 depending on the initiatives) for whoever goes down and a bonus action for the cleric. This could easily happen multiple times in a fight.

IMO these are the options :

- combat turns clown shoes when a PC goes down
- you coup de grace downed players if playing with intelligent foes, especially in melee where it only takes 2 hits
- houserule this silliness out of existence (remove ranged healing, introduce a staggered condition which severely limits you until the next short rest, whatever)

PS. heh, they realised this earlier in the playtest and made healing word require that the target could hear you ... but they removed this balancing feature, probably because someone didn't realise why that was in there in the first place. Always write why you do stuff like you do in documentation, especially when it's not immediately obvious.

[Pex]

I think the point being made wasn't that that's what the DM would do, but rather the opportunity cost weighed against healing, by the cleric. While cheese isn't really necessary, the point being made is that a cleric can do more for the party's longevity by spending actions and spells to take the enemies out of the fight (either with buffs placed on the party or with offensive spells), and thus preventing those enemies from dealing damage to the PCs. That decrease in damage taken tends to work out, in 3.x, to be greater than the amount healing provides, on a round by round and spell by spell basis. Thus on a measure of party longevity, you tend to do worse with in-combat healing than most other things a cleric could be doing.

Nice in theory. Fails in practice. The party takes damage anyway. Warriors can miss. Enemies can make their saving throws. Enemy warriors can hit you. You can fail your saving throw. Healing in combat is a tactic, and that's all I said it was. Effective, yes, not the ubermost best only tactic anyone should ever do or else you're the suck. I know it works because I have done it. The party is more aggressive. When I don't do it, the players fight differently. We still win. That means I know there are other effective tactics besides healing in combat, but the approach to the combat is different, more reserve.

I do know party members drop to below 0 more often when I don't do it and no one else is either. This is for the BBEG fights, not filler combats. When I do it, the combat has to be at least CR + 2 for anyone to drop due to hit point loss. One time we fought a CR + 3 encounter. The combat was over only when I finally failed a saving throw to a Greater Command spell. Once my Oracle of Life was out of the picture, the party fell. We were captured as intended, not TPK. Had it been a CR or CR + 1 fight and I was taken out, the party could still have won. It happened before.

[Sartharina]

But if you had an Oracle of Obscene Damage Dealing instead of Oracle of Healbot, you'd be able to take on enemies of ECL+5 without breaking a sweat!

That said - in 3.5, the opportunity cost of healing vs. acting was against healing. This is not 3.5, though. I find my heals are stronger than the damage dealt in a round compared to the damage I can mitigate in a round - especially because spells and attacks are much less reliable.

My current Hill Dwarven cleric had to use his Cure Wounds spell in combat in a fight with Goblins... but that's because the person at risk of going down was himself (Despite having an AC of 18 and the most HP in the party due to rolling for stats and starting with Con 20)

Spending an action to not let someone who has a more valuable action lose theirs is a good action economy tradeoff, as well.

Frankly, I think once character goes Down, it should stay down unless extensive effort is used to bring them back up so that CDGs are heavily discouraged. Forcing players to reroll after every battle (Instead of just costing daily resources, and having a tense outcome where PCs still get taken out of the fight) isn't fun gameplay for the PCs.

[JusticeZero]

But we're not talking necessarily about healing versus acting. We're talking about healing versus negating the effectiveness of the enemy's actions. I care not how effective attacking is, only how effective it is to make the other guy flail around ineffectively. Attacking is for attacking experts.

[Pex]

But if you had an Oracle of Obscene Damage Dealing instead of Oracle of Healbot, you'd be able to take on enemies of ECL+5 without breaking a sweat!

That said - in 3.5, the opportunity cost of healing vs. acting was against healing. This is not 3.5, though. I find my heals are stronger than the damage dealt in a round compared to the damage I can mitigate in a round - especially because spells and attacks are much less reliable.

My current Hill Dwarven cleric had to use his Cure Wounds spell in combat in a fight with Goblins... but that's because the person at risk of going down was himself (Despite having an AC of 18 and the most HP in the party due to rolling for stats and starting with Con 20)

Spending an action to not let someone who has a more valuable action lose theirs is a good action economy tradeoff, as well.

Frankly, I think once character goes Down, it should stay down unless extensive effort is used to bring them back up so that CDGs are heavily discouraged. Forcing players to reroll after every battle (Instead of just costing daily resources, and having a tense outcome where PCs still get taken out of the fight) isn't fun gameplay for the PCs.

Right. In another campaign I'm playing an Oracle of Dark Tapestry, buff myself up the whazoo, and go to town in enemies' faces. That's the game where everyone is more reserve. It also works. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying healing in combat is also an effective tactic. I agree this tactic will not work in 5E because they took away spell slots. It fails because the cleric player would be bored. He won't have the spell slots left to do anything non-healing and failing to have fun at the game is the worst failure of all.

Before anyone asks then why I am bringing this up, it's because the original question I was responding to wasn't about 5E specifically but an inquiry to something in between a healer being needed and one who thinks healing is just a waste of time. Healing as a combat tactic is my answer.

[Tholomyes]

But we're not talking necessarily about healing versus acting. We're talking about healing versus negating the effectiveness of the enemy's actions. I care not how effective attacking is, only how effective it is to make the other guy flail around ineffectively. Attacking is for attacking experts.Except, the best way of negating the effectiveness of enemy's actions is to, well, not give them actions. Either by dropping them to 0 HP (either with damage, or by buffing your allies to do it for you), or with other spells that a Cleric could cast (hold person, say)

Edit: Also, by just focusing on defense, all you're doing is forcing enemies to focus on your allies. You're not saving any damage, you're just shifting it over to other PCs.

[Sartharina]

But we're not talking necessarily about healing versus acting. We're talking about healing versus negating the effectiveness of the enemy's actions. I care not how effective attacking is, only how effective it is to make the other guy flail around ineffectively. Attacking is for attacking experts.

Well, I'd say completely healing (Or even just mostly healing) the damage an enemy tries to inflict to be a form of negating the effectiveness of the enemy's attack, given that it only does 3 points of damage/fails to kill the target instead of hitting for full damage/killing the target.
Except, the best way of negating the effectiveness of enemy's actions is to, well, not give them actions. Either by dropping them to 0 HP (either with damage, or by buffing your allies to do it for you), or with other spells that a Cleric could cast (hold person, say)
Assuming that those tactics actually do keep the enemy from taking actions. Hitting them and not dropping them to 0 HP might as well have done nothing, especially if they use their non-negated action to take out one of your guys. Same with trying to Hold Person someone and they make the save. You just spent your action and spell slot to Absolutely No Effect. Meanwhile, healing someone so that the creature can't drop them to 0 HP with their action greatly diminishes the effect of that action.

[Fwiffo86]

Buff to party is x% reliable based on the buff

Status effect spell is x% effective based on save throw

Healing is always 100% reliable, if a boring way to negate enemy actions.

At least tactically, I agree with Pex. While it may be boring, undoing what has been done to the party is a 100% effective way to negate actions as I see it

[JusticeZero]

And that's a big reason why I don't like it. It's BORING and fairly brainless. "What.. huh? My turn? *puts down the cellphone* Who's hurt worst? I cast a cure. *goes back to the video game*" The main tactical factor in healing on an MMO is even gone in D&D because if healing in D&D was like healing in an MMO, all heals would have a full round action casting time and not take effect until the next round. Casting time, y'know.
I'd much rather have people trying to pro-actively protect people based on what they think is going to happen round by round. For instance, instead of having heals, have ranged touch temporary HP buffs with short durations, or some such thing. Then you're actually having to watch the battle tactically and make judgments about where to bestow your godmodey goodness as the battle progresses instead of just whacking health totals.

[Fwiffo86]

And that's a big reason why I don't like it. It's BORING and fairly brainless. "What.. huh? My turn? *puts down the cellphone* Who's hurt worst? I cast a cure. *goes back to the video game*" The main tactical factor in healing on an MMO is even gone in D&D because if healing in D&D was like healing in an MMO, all heals would have a full round action casting time and not take effect until the next round. Casting time, y'know.
I'd much rather have people trying to pro-actively protect people based on what they think is going to happen round by round. For instance, instead of having heals, have ranged touch temporary HP buffs with short durations, or some such thing. Then you're actually having to watch the battle tactically and make judgments about where to bestow your godmodey goodness as the battle progresses instead of just whacking health totals.

I agree with you. Why not just add cast times? Simple equation would be Spell level in initiative segments?

[Sartharina]

And that's a big reason why I don't like it. It's BORING and fairly brainless. "What.. huh? My turn? *puts down the cellphone* Who's hurt worst? I cast a cure. *goes back to the video game*" The main tactical factor in healing on an MMO is even gone in D&D because if healing in D&D was like healing in an MMO, all heals would have a full round action casting time and not take effect until the next round. Casting time, y'know.
I'd much rather have people trying to pro-actively protect people based on what they think is going to happen round by round. For instance, instead of having heals, have ranged touch temporary HP buffs with short durations, or some such thing. Then you're actually having to watch the battle tactically and make judgments about where to bestow your godmodey goodness as the battle progresses instead of just whacking health totals.

Meanwhile, I'd rather be smacking people around with a massive hammer or setting things on fire, while healing those who get hurt.

A cast time would make healing worse - in MMOs, most abilities are on timers anyway. As it is, if I'm casting a cure spell, I can't be whacking someone with a hammer. As it is, as a cleric, I have to be aware of everything that's going on - health point totals of allies, spell slots remaining (Unlike wizards, clerics don't get theirs back), who can benefit from my Channel Divinity healing (It only heals to half!), and whether or not I should instead cast a spell that can be more effective.

As a cleric, I'm not a clothy healbot, though my magic is mostly about healing. I am a badass jack-of-all trades (Dwarves rock!) standing in the front line with the Fighter, laying on the hurt with flame and hammer alike, and spending spells (I have a lot more prepared than I can cast!) when I need to, based on the situation.

I kinda wish clerics got a cantrip or something that could heal people that are above half-health, for topping up HP after a battle. In combat, you heal when below half-health through judicious use of limited resources, while out of combat, people use their Hit Dice (Yet another limited resource) to get back to half-health, and the cleric gives them the rest of their HP back.

[Kaervaslol]

@OP

When I DM resurrection is a matter of divine intervention. There is no revolving door separating this realm with the afterlife. Gods are gonna break the laws of life and death only if you are part of their eternal plans and worthy of meddling in such affairs.

So you they can roll a fresh level 1 or use one of the henchmen they've been carrying around.

[Pex]

And that's a big reason why I don't like it. It's BORING and fairly brainless. "What.. huh? My turn? *puts down the cellphone* Who's hurt worst? I cast a cure. *goes back to the video game*" The main tactical factor in healing on an MMO is even gone in D&D because if healing in D&D was like healing in an MMO, all heals would have a full round action casting time and not take effect until the next round. Casting time, y'know.
I'd much rather have people trying to pro-actively protect people based on what they think is going to happen round by round. For instance, instead of having heals, have ranged touch temporary HP buffs with short durations, or some such thing. Then you're actually having to watch the battle tactically and make judgments about where to bestow your godmodey goodness as the battle progresses instead of just whacking health totals.

Can't argue with you there; it's just not suitable to your taste. I'm having a blast playing my Oracle of Life. I feel I'm finally playing a cleric like I always wanted to. I do find joy in healing the barbarian from near death to almost full and let him go to town again in the enemies' faces and he just will not drop. The enemies very rarely heal themselves, so the party wins on hit point attrition. Sucks for them the evil cleric can't spontaneously heal or channel positive energy. :smallamused: However, the tactic is not for you. Fair enough.

[JusticeZero]

Can't argue with you there; it's just not suitable to your taste.
Right. It's just that an awful lot of "fixes" seem based around the idea of making that playstyle into the primary or only effective way to build an effective party. For example, by giving healing a special action economy exception, or other ways to try to make parties more reliant on in-combat healing. Any time things are framed as "oh no, the cleric isn't casting healing spells in the middle of a fight!", i'm likely to be cringing soon. When it's framed as "I want to be able to heal better because I like healing", i'm a bit more okay with that, because that's someone actively trying to be doing better at a particular task. That would be helped by giving healing some range and secondary effects.

[Pex]

Right. It's just that an awful lot of "fixes" seem based around the idea of making that playstyle into the primary or only effective way to build an effective party. For example, by giving healing a special action economy exception, or other ways to try to make parties more reliant on in-combat healing. Any time things are framed as "oh no, the cleric isn't casting healing spells in the middle of a fight!", i'm likely to be cringing soon. When it's framed as "I want to be able to heal better because I like healing", i'm a bit more okay with that, because that's someone actively trying to be doing better at a particular task. That would be helped by giving healing some range and secondary effects.

Pathfinder does that. :smallbiggrin: Channel Energy heals multiple targets at a range. With a feat it can be done as a move action. An Oracle of Life, in addition to channeling, can cure wounds as a swift action a couple of times a day, can do some healing to himself as a move equivalent action or another character as part of his move, and effectively give party members fast healing 5, though I don't have that particular revelation. A Paladin can remove afflictions while healing, such as sickened, nausea, and stunned at high level.

[Grac]

If you explain to your players that death is death. That clerics either cannot, or do not, raise the dead except in the most perilous and extraneous circumstances, what do you think would be the most likely response game play wise?

Raise Dead, Resurrection, etc. become unavailable to players to wield themselves, or are prohibitively expensive (excessive gold cost, negotiate a peace treated with the Orcish hordes, kill the recently unmasked lich) that it becomes nearly impossible to do.

Is this being too hard on players? I ask because my group likes this mentality. They are more cautious, and approach battles with plans (which sometimes work exactly as planned), and enter combat with exit strategies if it all starts to fall apart.

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned ACKS in this thread yet. This is what I like about res in ACKS. Yep you can raise dead, but you gotta roll on a table first. They might come back fine, they might come back scarred, they might come back with personality changes, missing or changed limbs, allergies to magical healing... And each res adds to the likelihood that future results will give a bad result. Eventually leading to... res doesn't work.

[Tholomyes]

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned ACKS in this thread yet. This is what I like about res in ACKS. Yep you can raise dead, but you gotta roll on a table first. They might come back fine, they might come back scarred, they might come back with personality changes, missing or changed limbs, allergies to magical healing... And each res adds to the likelihood that future results will give a bad result. Eventually leading to... res doesn't work.I'm not a big fan of that. I rarely like matters of life and death to come down to chance. Death saving throws are one thing, since they open up the potential for a party member to heal the dying character before they bleed out. With random resurrection tables, it all comes down to luck. As a player, it's easier to stomach death when resurrection is disallowed, than when resurrection is possible, but you just rolled too low to come back. As a DM, it's easier to make judgments on whether a situation calls for PC death, when you know for a fact that resurrection is either (for the most part) impossible or relatively easy. But when it's random, it's not as easy to make those judgments and have them turn out correct.

Furthermore, on the roll-results on the table, I don't like it when the rules mandate things that should come down to role playing. If I do or don't feel my character's personality should change as a result of coming back to life, it should be my choice. Having it come down random chance is not something I care for. I've even played games where DM's whim dictated certain roleplay changes (often times these DMs would be the ones to use items like Helm of opposite alignment or girdle of opposite gender, but they might just have similar effects with no cursed items involved), but I think I'd even find them preferable, since they were at least predictable. In their games, I wouldn't build up a character was as invested in, since when their whim dictated that my character suddenly developed a fascination with symmetry (for a mild example) or suddenly changed from an upbeat disposition to a dour sullen one, I wouldn't care that it wasn't my vision, and would just roll with it. With random rolls, I don't have that luxury of predictability.

[pwykersotz]

I agree with Tholomyes that the random table is frustrating. I love the idea of consequences, but I think it should be closer to:
If you are raised from the dead within 1 day, you take a -4 penalty that drops by one per long rest.
If you are raised from the dead within 1 week, you come back with a disfiguring scar and take the 1 day penalty.
If you are raised from the dead within 1 month...you get the idea.

The changes should be physical, and any personality changes should be determined by roleplay. Still, ACKS seems like a start.

[Grac]

I'm not a big fan of that. I rarely like matters of life and death to come down to chance. Death saving throws are one thing, since they open up the potential for a party member to heal the dying character before they bleed out. With random resurrection tables, it all comes down to luck. As a player, it's easier to stomach death when resurrection is disallowed, than when resurrection is possible, but you just rolled too low to come back. As a DM, it's easier to make judgments on whether a situation calls for PC death, when you know for a fact that resurrection is either (for the most part) impossible or relatively easy. But when it's random, it's not as easy to make those judgments and have them turn out correct.

Furthermore, on the roll-results on the table, I don't like it when the rules mandate things that should come down to role playing. If I do or don't feel my character's personality should change as a result of coming back to life, it should be my choice. Having it come down random chance is not something I care for. I've even played games where DM's whim dictated certain roleplay changes (often times these DMs would be the ones to use items like Helm of opposite alignment or girdle of opposite gender, but they might just have similar effects with no cursed items involved), but I think I'd even find them preferable, since they were at least predictable. In their games, I wouldn't build up a character was as invested in, since when their whim dictated that my character suddenly developed a fascination with symmetry (for a mild example) or suddenly changed from an upbeat disposition to a dour sullen one, I wouldn't care that it wasn't my vision, and would just roll with it. With random rolls, I don't have that luxury of predictability.

Its a bit more predictable than you are saying. With resurrection chances being impacted by the condition of the body and previous ressurections, the player is given a choice: do I want to risk coming back changed or at low effectiveness, or do I die when I'm killed and make sure I have a will written about.

Of course this isn't for everyone, but the campaign implications are important to me. Not only is there a reason for why a king wasn't raised (he was, but came back blind, deaf, and dumb and is now in a monastery. PC's came back but with injuries that mean they can't continue adventuring, and were retired, giving a reason for all those ex-adventurer inn owners).

[da_chicken]

Its a bit more predictable than you are saying. With resurrection chances being impacted by the condition of the body and previous ressurections, the player is given a choice: do I want to risk coming back changed or at low effectiveness, or do I die when I'm killed and make sure I have a will written about.

That's not a choice, that's a dilemma. I would argue that a dilemma adds very little of value to a game because they're not fun. If resurrection were otherwise without cost I could agree that the modern equivalent of a system shock roll might be necessary to enforce the consequences of death, but IMX the significant monetary cost is enough to discourage and punish abuse.