PDA

View Full Version : 4e - What do you guys think of these Raise Dead rules?



Saph
2008-09-28, 06:30 PM
As some of you know, I play at a gaming society that's actually a collection of gaming groups who all meet up together in London. It's fun, because you get to chat with other groups before and after your own game, and you get to see their games and campaigns unfold and progress (or fail).

One of the other DMs is running the 4e "Scales of War" campaign. They've played 4 sessions or so, and have just had their first couple of player fatalities. In the aftermath of the session, the DM posted the following on our website's message board. What do you think of them?


OK - onto the subject of Raising the Dead. ( i would have covered this earlier but didn't expect it to be 'on the table' so soon.)

My general feeling is that i don't like the Raise Dead option where it is freely available at all times and without consequences other than a bit of money laid out. It feels to me like a video game where you just put another 10p in and bingo! you get a new life. In playing terms i feel it devalues the experience because you can be quite blase about getting killed in the knowledge that your friends can just throw a few hundred gold pieces in someones direction and you'll be good as new...

So my table rule on Raise the Dead is a follows.

The ritual is available in this world as per the PHB tho likely to cost more. However such is the serious nature of this ritual that there are potential consequences, and they can be both for the caster and for the recipient. The consequences will usually be related to the manner of the recipients death, and/or the caster's current life situation. When the ritual is performed the following happens

the recipient rolls a d6

1 = no or possibly even good consequences
2,3 = moderate consequences
4,5 = serious consequences
6 = extreme consequences

As i said the exact nature of the consequences for the recipient will depend on a number of things but to give you a feel - Mork, Dork and Nork are all killed by a White Dragon after being caught in the dragons cold breath. Fortunately their bodies are rescued by their colleagues who then perform a raise dead ritual. Mork roles a 2, Dork a 4 and Nork a 6. on their recipients role.

Mork recovers but becomes vulnerable 10 to cold, has minus 2 on endurance checks that involve the cold, and has a permanent reduction of one point on his constitution stat, with all resultant reductions on skills, hit points, defences etc.

Dork recovers but a cold chill has been cast on his heart that can't be shaken off. A lawful good paladin, Dork now struggles to maintain his former view of the world and is beset by doubt, moodiness and sometimes bleak thoughts about his purpose in life. All Dorks encounter powers now only re-charge on 4,5,6 between encounters.

Nork recovers but during the process an evil minor dragon-God intervenes. He will only allow Nork to return to the world on the understanding that he replaces his own soul with that of two of his colleagues.

For the caster - roll a d20

1 to 10 - no consequences
11 to 14 - light consequences (usually v.minor)
15 to 17 - moderate consequences
18 or 19 - serious consequences
20 - extreme consequences.

What do you guys think? Good, or bad?

My reaction on reading them was "Damn, that's harsh. I'm not sure I'd want my character raised at all with that hanging over her head, and I definitely wouldn't be casting it either." Which might have been the intention. So far, the responses from those actually playing in his game have been mixed.

- Saph

(Note: I'm posting this in Gaming rather than Homebrew because these aren't my rules, I'm not going to be playing with them, and I'm mostly interested in people's general opinions on how easy/hard/dangerous Raise Dead should be.)

fractic
2008-09-28, 06:40 PM
Being nerfed hard for dying just isn't very fun. I think 4e handles it good enough as it is. The penalty is significant but not huge. It also lasts for a reasonable duration at about half a level.

RTGoodman
2008-09-28, 06:46 PM
I can understand that raising is too easy for some in 4E, but I think he's gone past easy, reasonable, and hard and all the way into TOO harsh. If you're going to do anything to limit raise dead, start by making it more expensive (which he's done) and maybe have the death penalty (-1 to basically everything for 3 milestone) either become a -2 or last until the player gains a level.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-28, 06:48 PM
The point of ressurection changes was to make it less of a punishment for players - losing experience, constitution score, or other such consequences does not constitute for a fun game, especially if you die by bad luck with dice and especially with 4e which is a hard enough game already. And those houserules are even worse, because while you can regain experience, they can make your character so flawed it's practically unplayable.

Dying is enough of a frustrating experience that it needs no further punishment. And any half-decent roleplayer will not risk his life on a whim and needlessly anyway (unless he's playing such a character).

Short version - these houserules are
http://ffrpg.republika.pl/baka.PNG

Starbuck_II
2008-09-28, 07:03 PM
As some of you know, I play at a gaming society that's actually a collection of gaming groups who all meet up together in London. It's fun, because you get to chat with other groups before and after your own game, and you get to see their games and campaigns unfold and progress (or fail).

One of the other DMs is running the 4e "Scales of War" campaign. They've played 4 sessions or so, and have just had their first couple of player fatalities. In the aftermath of the session, the DM posted the following on our website's message board. What do you think of them?



What do you guys think? Good, or bad?

My reaction on reading them was "Damn, that's harsh. I'm not sure I'd want my character raised at all with that hanging over her head, and I definitely wouldn't be casting it either." Which might have been the intention. So far, the responses from those actually playing in his game have been mixed.

- Saph

(Note: I'm posting this in Gaming rather than Homebrew because these aren't my rules, I'm not going to be playing with them, and I'm mostly interested in people's general opinions on how easy/hard/dangerous Raise Dead should be.)

Wait, so both the caster and the recipient of raised dead get punished in his version?
At least the recipient gets positive affects if he rolls a 1.

I like the idea behind the rules. The spirit of the rules is okay, but the actual text sucks.
Plus, how do you know if the DM is being fair when you roll slight. Since slight isn't defined anywhere.
Slight to the DM might mean Moderate to me.


Also, Moderate and Extreme are reversed inthe examples.
I'd rather 4, 5, 6 roll to recharge encounters after battle than Mark's penalties.

Charity
2008-09-28, 07:05 PM
I think I'd prob remain dead and roll up a new character rather than face unforetold, randomly generated, permanant, unbalancing character nerfs for something happening to my character that I tried my best to avoid...

If his players were chucking themselves off cliffs rather than walk down then fair enough, just say the gods didn't smile on that ritual, but this system seems very arbitary and unduely harsh to me... especially as with point buy you could just make an identical character.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-28, 07:13 PM
Sounds a bit like the ideas in Heroes of Horror, which were cool and thematically appropriate for a game of fantasy horror.

The DM has written himself a blank check to screw over any character that gets raised. I wouldn't put up with that sort of abuse of power.

"Bad stuff is going to happen to you, but you have no way of guessing what it might be, and I have a free hand to make it anything I want and mess up your character concept from the inside. Bwahaha!"

No, thanks.

Ent
2008-09-28, 07:14 PM
I still love the last line of Raise Dead... death is less inclined to return them, so, cough*bribe*cough, pass death a few coins like a town guard.

Inyssius Tor
2008-09-28, 07:19 PM
I think his consequences are quite a bit too harsh. I don't really want to be punished for dying--I already died over it, after all! I don't like the idea of nerfing a character because of death.

Now, other consequences are awesome. I doubt I'll be resurrecting anyone in my game without squeezing at least two plot-hooks out of the buildup and aftermath. (find the Crown of Lien the Undying to keep Roderick alive! Roderick, survive in the Shadowfell until they can find it! All of you, get out of the obligations you owe the entity you dealt with to raise him!) Ditto house-rules that give the character both an advantage and a disadvantage. For example:
Your ordeal in the lands of the dead has shaken loose your racial connection to the Feywild; instead, your untethered soul drifts toward the Shadowfell. When you use fey step, you are dealt 1d8 necrotic damage (increasing to 2d6 at 11th level and 3d6 at 21st level) and gain an aura 1 until the end of your next turn. Creatures within this aura take cold damage equal to your Charisma modifier.

chiasaur11
2008-09-28, 07:26 PM
I still love the last line of Raise Dead... death is less inclined to return them, so, cough*bribe*cough, pass death a few coins like a town guard.

I bet the head Death'd be pretty teed off if he knew.

Vortling
2008-09-28, 07:59 PM
I laugh at these house rules. I'm not sure what's the intended outcome, but if I was playing in a game with these rules I'd be less inclined to care about my character RP-wise. I'd simply have the DM keep them dead each time and make a new character. And bring portable entertainment if he insisted on excluding the new character for an inordinate amount of time.

In short, it's really too harsh. If you don't want players resurrected you should just say so. Otherwise they will prefer death to be a revolving door.

Waspinator
2008-09-28, 08:27 PM
As has been said, the most likely outcome of these rules would be that people would stop raising characters and instead just make new ones.

Yakk
2008-09-28, 08:35 PM
*nod* -- what are the new character rules, start at level 1 and get no extra XP from being out-classed by opponents? :-)

Resurrection shouldn't, gamist-wise, be uniformly worse than rolling a new character.

Edea
2008-09-28, 08:35 PM
Sign me up for 'total and complete character detachment,' 'have PSP, will disrupt session until new character is allowed in at the same level as the previous one,' and 'DM is going to quickly lose players/player interest.' These are idiotic houserules in the context of 4e (assuming the DM who wrote them is being serious).

Collin152
2008-09-28, 08:40 PM
Reduce the harshness of the penalties, provide a way to eliminate them over time, and I'm sold.
I like the idea of consequences for death, just not such extreme ones.

Randel
2008-09-28, 09:23 PM
One thought I had rolling in my head for the past few days was the idea that spells like raise dead don't work reliably unless preparations have been made. Mostly, hiding a portion of the persons soul in a jar which is later activated on their deceased body to revive them.


The ritual to create a soul jar is similar to casting a raise dead spell normally, but it targets a living person and harmlessly extracts a portion of their soul and hides it in a small object. Often in a ceramic egg which is then kept in a box. The receipiant of the spell must spend a healing surge (which is recovered with an extended rest) but suffers no other mechanical disadvantages (though some may find some portion of their essence missing, like the memory of their happiest day or their fondness for some person).

If that person dies, then their soul jar will attract the rest of their soul to it and hide them from Death. The soul jar may glow when the person dies thus alerting a companion entrusted with the jar of their friends demise. If the soul jar is brought within 5 feet of the dead persons body (or a portion of it) and broken then the soul returns to the body and repairs it as if the Raise Dead ritual had revived them normally. Complete with the penalties associated with it.

However, when the jar is broken then it only takes 5 minutes for them to be brought back instead of one hour. A person may have at maximum one jar in heroic tier, two in paragon tier, and three in epic tier. Each one costs the full price of casting the raise dead ritual.

If a soul jar is broken more than 5 feet from the dead body then the soul portion is lost to the great beyond (unless multiple soul jars exist in which case it is rescued by the remaining jars). If broken when the person still lives then they recover that stored bit of soul (no mechanical advantage but would recover whatever memory or 'bit of their being' they lost when storing it away). Soul jars have a limited tracking ability to seek out the dead body of the person to raise with them, this primarily help to make sure the person activating the jar knows that this is definatly the place to use the precious item.

A person who's soul is hidden in a soul jar but not restored to life is generally unable to interact with the world and exists in a sleeplike state with bits of dream to keep them company. Though some may be able to communicate to people who are either sleeping or within a short distance of their soul jar.

As the soul is a quantum thing unlimited by conventional physics, in a given group then no one soul jar contains 'more' soul than the others since they seem to all contain all of it at once. Though as is the case, sometimes things work differently for different people.

Eating another persons soul jar is not recommended, nor is force feeding your own soul jar to someone else. The results are not pretty to either party.

Mewtarthio
2008-09-28, 09:38 PM
Only a fifty percent chance of recovering encounter powers for the rest of eternity? :smalleek: That's ridiculously harsh. Seriously, that's very, very nasty. I'm not opposed to you upping the consequences of resurrection, but at least let them go away after a while.


Eating another persons soul jar is not recommended, nor is force feeding your own soul jar to someone else. The results are not pretty to either party.

:smallsmile:

Shades of Gray
2008-09-28, 09:53 PM
You can make it so that the negative effects can be lost after a character reaches a milestone.

Or you could make it so they permanently lose healing surges. Until a milestone or a level.

nightwyrm
2008-09-28, 09:56 PM
All these harsh rules for raising dead, when will DMs understand that players can make a profit by leaving their characters dead and making new characters.

New character comes into the play in pristine condition and with new gear, while the party can loot the dead character and not have to pay for raise dead fee.

erikun
2008-09-28, 09:59 PM
My reaction:

If you want Raise Dead to be a non-laissez faire situation, then make casting the ritual a hassle. Require the person be taking to a church for the cleric preforming the ritual. Run the caster and dead character (perhaps the whole party) through a skill challange or fight, where they need to get the dead character's souls from Death itself. Require a sacrifice from the deceased personal effects, such as important or meaningful equipment.

Basically, make Raise Dead painful but capable of bouncing back from. Saddling the PCs with permanent penalities isn't going to make the game more fun, or more exciting. It will make the game more boring, much like if they fought a BBEG and the BBEG wandered around and took extra actions that the PCs couldn't affect.

Make the game fun and challanging. Don't make it annoying or stressful.

Jayabalard
2008-09-28, 10:12 PM
Personally, I don't have a problem with any of the penalties... none of them are "too harsh" for me to enjoy the game. But I think it's silly for to use a die roll, especially 1d anything, to determine it.

He should just simplify it to "bad things are going to happen to you if you are raised from the dead" and leave it at that.


New character comes into the play in pristine condition and with new gear, while the party can loot the dead character and not have to pay for raise dead fee.For any GM worth his salt, that's a short term boost if any.


Saddling the PCs with permanent penalities isn't going to make the game more fun, or more exciting.That's simply a matter of personal preference. Some people like that sort of thing; you run risks this bad just for casting spells in general in some systems (the old TSR Conan for example)

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-28, 10:46 PM
In short, it's really too harsh. If you don't want players resurrected you should just say so. Otherwise they will prefer death to be a revolving door.

I don't think this is necessarily true. There are great ways to handle resurrection magic out there.

In Glorantha (explicitly laid out in HeroQuest, but not in RuneQuest), resurrecting someone is huge magic. Traditionally, you need very specialized magic, or a heroquest (a journey into the Otherworld) - and a lot of that specialized magic is heroquests. The White Woman will have to gather a party to represent the gods who journeyed into the Underworld to bring back the Sun and all the others who had died, and this party will have to face demons and dangers in the Darkness beneath the Earth. The greatest hunter-followers of the Bear God can "sleep to life" after dying, like the bear slept through the Great Darkness of Death.

And if you do come back, you may be changed (this being a roleplay aspect that the player can choose). Some heroes can survive multiple resurrections without being affected, and that becomes their big claim to fame. But most others will find their connection to Life weaker, and their connection to Death stronger; they may be bleak or unable to enjoy the tastes and smells and sounds of life, and may elect to henceforth follow the God of Death.

The journey, too, can be perilous. Maybe you are unable to trick the Guardian at the Gate, and must bargain with it instead; you might have to give it your hand, which can never be grown back (or which might only not exist in the Otherworld). You might lose your eye to the carrion birds in the hellish halls. You might earn the enmity of the Keeper of the Dead.

And so on.

But a blank slate just saying "you roll on this table for totally indeterminate and vague consequences that I decide on the spot and that are obviously intended to screw with you" is the worst imaginable way to handle it.

I think I, as a player, would prefer death to be another grand and epic adventure, rather than a revolving door. I can deal with death being final just great - but that works for specific kinds of games that expect less epic heroics of PCs than D&D. I would absolutely detest death being a way for the GM to arbitrarily and randomly screw my character.


You can make it so that the negative effects can be lost after a character reaches a milestone.

Or you could make it so they permanently lose healing surges. Until a milestone or a level.

Much better and balanced mechanical ideas. Intesify the penalties already associated with raise dead (PHB page 311, "a death penalty; -1 to all attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws, and ability checks [...] fades after the subject reaches three milestones").

Using that same mechanic with bigger penalties would be way fairer and more balanced. Maybe you don't have access to your dailies until 3 milestones. Maybe the penalty is -2 or -4.

Yakk
2008-09-28, 11:10 PM
Catch the Soul
Level: 1 Component Cost: 10 gp
Category: Restoration Market Price: 50 gp
Time: 1 minute Key Skill: Heal
Duration: 1 month

To perform the Catch Soul ritual, you must have the body of the target who has died less than 10 minutes ago. Make a DC (10+Target's Level/2) Heal check to catch the soul -- failures may be repeated, but do not extend the 10 minute window, and consume components. Finally, the ritual caster must consume 1 healing surge from themselves or a willing donor. This healing surge is returned 30 days later, or when the donor gives up the gain of an action point at a milestone.

The ritual catches a piece of the departing target's soul in a component used in the ritual, which allows a later Resurrect ritual to be cast on the target. Without this ritual taking place, the target cannot be brought back from the dead short of quest to the lands of the dead. If the object that the soul was caught to is lost or stolen, the target cannot be resurrected without it.

This ritual has other, less pleasant, uses as well.

Resurrect
Level: 8 Component Cost: 500 gp + special
Category: Restoration Market Price: 680 gp
Time: 8 hours Key Skill: Heal
Duration: Instant

This ritual may only be performed on dead targets on whom a successful Catch the Soul ritual was performed.
The caster of the ritual makes a Heal check against a DC of 10 plus the target's level. Increasing the components spent to 5,000 gp gives a +5 modifier on this roll, and increasing it to 50,000 gp gives a +10 modifier on this roll.

In the event of failure, the ritual may be tried again, but the component cost doubles for the same modifier, as does the casting time.

In the event of success, the subject returns to life with a -1 penalty on all attack, saving throw, skill checks, and ability check rolls. This penalty fades after the subject reaches 3 milestones. You cannot return to life a subject that has been petrified, died of old age, is currently an animated undead, or similar problems.

---

In essence, you prevent the target from ever going 'fully dead', and then reanimate the body. However, someone who is dead stays dead, short of an epic quest.

THAC0
2008-09-28, 11:16 PM
Not a big fan of changing the raise dead rules. Here's why:

In 4e, party composition and balance is KEY. If you have one character die and raising them isn't worthwhile, you can often find yourself with an unbalanced party (unless the player makes a double or near double of the character!), which can easily ruin the game.

That's the huge reason that I like having raise dead readily available.

However, I also play in a group that doesn't always take advantage of that. Actually, come to think of it, we've never actually raised a character, but used the character's death as an opportunity to better balance our party. Once we reach a good balance, though, that might change.

THAC0
2008-09-28, 11:18 PM
All these harsh rules for raising dead, when will DMs understand that players can make a profit by leaving their characters dead and making new characters.

New character comes into the play in pristine condition and with new gear, while the party can loot the dead character and not have to pay for raise dead fee.

Which is why the DM simply accounts for that. ICly, in our game, the dead are laid to rest with their items, removing items from a corpse is just Not Done. Unless you're naughty, I suppose.

OOCly we have an agreement regarding loots, and know very well that if we do loot our friend's corpse, that will be taken out of the treasure we typically would have obtained on our next few adventures.

BobVosh
2008-09-29, 12:56 AM
I always liked 1st/2nd eds "save vs ressurrection" Basically rez is a hideous exparience and you die of shock XD

Anyway, the way we handle rez at our table is new characters come in half a level behind, and rez is -500xLevel in exp. Comes out to about the same, slightly in favor of rez.

Hal
2008-09-29, 06:03 AM
If nothing else, this seems like the kind of thing that a DM should be clear about before the start of the game, or at least before players start biting it. There is nothing more frustrating to think that the game world operates in some way, only to be told by the DM that he's personally writing errata for the rules book you spent so long learning. Maybe if the characters knew about such things before hand, they might not have walked into danger so easily.

If you don't like certain rules, that's fine. But give players a chance to react to your special rules before you ambush them.

MartinHarper
2008-09-29, 09:36 AM
I think it's a mistake to have permanent drops in power for characters that aren't "you lose a level" or "you lose experience", because it breaks the fundamental concept that characters of the same level should be at the same power level. Temporary power drops, personality changes, and mechanical changes are all fine, though the player should have more say in them than the DM.


All these harsh rules for raising dead, when will DMs understand that players can make a profit by leaving their characters dead and making new characters?

DMs who understand that make sure that new characters start with less power than existing party members, in an amount that corresponds roughly with the reduction in power associated with being raised from the dead.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-29, 10:18 AM
What's to stop a 4e player who didn't like the penalties from saying "Hmm... ya know what, I'd rather reroll," then erasing the name at the top of the character sheet, and writing a new one? I mean I always wondered this for 3.5e players who die a few times but once you hit the lowest balanced experience level you can be in your party, couldn't you die as many times as you like and just change the name of your character instead of using an expensive rezz?

Keep in mind when you're coming up with a new death penalty that if you make death too awful, the players just going to either reroll or quit. The point of D&D isn't to imitate realistic death, it's to make sure all the players have fun immersing themselves into the DM's world, and players with dead or useless characters aren't usually having much fun.

potatocubed
2008-09-29, 10:37 AM
Much as I like the idea of epic quests to raise the dead a la Glorantha, they have one key problem: what does the player of the dead guy do while the rest of the party is questing to bring them back? 'Play hirelings' is an option, and a good reason for every party to have at least a few lackeys on call. :smalltongue:

A speedy revolving door kind of death has the key advantage that it keeps the game moving and keeps the dead character's player involved. It's also a bit... unsatisfying.

I believe the intent of the house rules in the original post was to inspire characters to quest to overcome their drawbacks - a very old school kind of situation, and one I could get behind in a more moderate form. But if they're playing a scripted adventure path (Scales of War? I don't know it...) then doing that sort of thing is going to detract from the main thrust of the campaign, which has its own array of problems.

I don't know what the best answer is. =/

horseboy
2008-09-29, 10:41 AM
What's to stop a 4e player who didn't like the penalties from saying "Hmm... ya know what, I'd rather reroll," then erasing the name at the top of the character sheet, and writing a new one?
Usually you get to the point you don't even bother erasing, you just put a "I" next to the name.
The moderate seemed kinda harsh to just be "moderate", any one of the three would be enough, I'd think.

Person_Man
2008-09-29, 10:45 AM
I think that there's got to be a happy medium in there somewhere.

For example, you could impose a cost of 2,000 gp per level of the deceased, you age 1d10 years (higher for long-lived races), and you are given a -2 penalty on all stats. When you gain a level, the penalties disappear, but you're party is still out a pile of cash, and you're still older. If you die and get resurrected again before gaining a level, the stat penalties are cumulative, and take multiple levels to clear out. And you can't be resurrected if you die of old age.

This imposes a real cost on death, but it doesn't severely nerf the PC. If anything, it makes them far more cautious, because they want to avoid losing money, aging (big roleplaying opportunity), and the stat penalties, which are minor by themselves but huge if they start stacking up.

Lapak
2008-09-29, 10:57 AM
...you age 1d10 years (higher for long-lived races),
...
And you can't be resurrected if you die of old age. I like this. It adds a trauma to death that puts an eventual upper cap on number of ressurrections, it adds a roleplaying-heavy penalty that becomes a mechanical penalty only after sufficient repetition, and it 'feels' right in the context of the game world. It makes death and revival damaging without imposing a nasty instant penalty on the character. I also kind of like the image of a prematurely-aged warrior, whose hair has gone gray and whose body is wasted by a constant cycle of death and revival even though he's only in his 20s.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-29, 10:58 AM
What's to stop a 4e player who didn't like the penalties from saying "Hmm... ya know what, I'd rather reroll," then erasing the name at the top of the character sheet, and writing a new one? I mean I always wondered this for 3.5e players who die a few times but once you hit the lowest balanced experience level you can be in your party, couldn't you die as many times as you like and just change the name of your character instead of using an expensive rezz?


Wealth per level rules in 3rd/Magic item per level in 4th:
My DMs usually give more than recommended. But make you start out a new character as recommended value.

So you are weaker by starting a new one if following the rules for Wealth per level.

fractic
2008-09-29, 11:14 AM
For example, you could impose a cost of 2,000 gp per level of the deceased

That doesn't work in 4e. It's a linear price cost while WBL is on an exponential scale. 40000 GP isn't a lot at level 20, but 2000 is more then a party of 5 can pay at level 1.

If you want to make the price higher I suggest 200*5^(level/5)

Tormsskull
2008-09-29, 11:40 AM
I like them. They do seem like they could be toned down a bit, but overall I agree with the idea and the implementation.

(I particularly liked the vlulnerable to cold one).

Inyssius Tor
2008-09-29, 12:11 PM
Much as I like the idea of epic quests to raise the dead a la Glorantha, they have one key problem: what does the player of the dead guy do while the rest of the party is questing to bring them back? 'Play hirelings' is an option, and a good reason for every party to have at least a few lackeys on call. :smalltongue:

I'd want to give the dead character something to do in the underworld while the rest of the party is trying to reanimate him, but I'm not at all sure if I could handle keeping one player entertained for one or two sessions while simultaneously running a completely separate adventure for the other players. At least that wouldn't be a problem in Play By Post games...

Yakk
2008-09-29, 01:05 PM
2000 GP per level is ... way off.

Wealth in 4e is exponential, not linear. The 4e base costs are exponential, but at a slower rate (500, 5000, 50000 -- x10 every 10 levels), while player wealth goes up x25 every 10 levels, resulting in raise dead being 2.5x cheaper every 10 levels (relative to character wealth).

With a linear cost and an exponential wealth, the relative cost of resurrection magic drops by a factor of 500x from level 1 to 30, instead of the core 150x.

That could be what you are aiming at, but I find it much more ... confidence inspiring ... when someone doing such an economic hack points it out themselves, and justifies the plan of how much cheaper they want raise dead to be at higher levels than lower levels, instead of it being pointed out, and saying "ya, that's good". ;-)

TheThan
2008-09-29, 03:35 PM
While I agree that the above house rules are quite harsh and leaves the DM too open to just abuse his players as he sees fit. That’s not to say I don’t like the idea of a resurrection ritual, or the idea that death has its consequences. I can see a resurrection ritual granting some minor flaws, but they should be minor and not nearly that harsh. But its due mainly dyeing in the first place, and not so much the resurrection that causes them. Well Flaw isn’t really the word I should be using, how about trait. For example I can imagine someone getting this following trait:

Scarred [trait]:
You’ve been slashed, stabbed and bludgeoned one too many times. You have horrible facial and body scars that detract from your personality.

You suffer a –1 to Diplomacy skill checks and gain a +1 to intimidate skill checks.


I'd write up a bunch of these and put them on a percentile table to determine which one you get when you get raised (probably leave a space for "no traits".

Blackfang108
2008-09-29, 04:00 PM
Wealth per level rules in 3rd/Magic item per level in 4th:
My DMs usually give more than recommended. But make you start out a new character as recommended value.

So you are weaker by starting a new one if following the rules for Wealth per level.

Lucky.

My DM gives out FAR less than the WBL guidelines.

I'm 4th level and I can't even afford to buy a lvl 1 magic item. (I'm close, but still.) I had one for all of one session, when I pulled off my Great Escape. (I lost ALL of my posessions on that one, and gained a short sword and leather armor instead. was wearing scale and had a +1 Bastard sword.)

Granted, half of my money goes into the group health fund, but still... We've found a total of 2 magic items. a +1 Orb and a +1 Bastard Sword(lost). and a total of about 1600 gold between the four of us, 1200 of that on a recent mission.

magellan
2008-09-29, 04:44 PM
What?
DM writes himself a blanco check to abuse his powers?

Hellooo! he is the DM! He doesnt need to write a check for that. Its actually his Job to screw his players over whenever he so pleases. He *is* the power, he can not abuse it.
He starts writing errata? No! He makes necessary changes to a system some foolish overpaid DMs tinkered together that didnt take his wants and needs in account. If you learened that stuff like the bible its your problem, not his.

Too harsh to get screwed over for dying? Hellooooo! You died. Most people stay that way, so if you get a chance to come back plz dont complain about the movie on the flight! If you insist on that and mention the food too, we can send you back any time.

The DM has one responsibility: To make them come back for more. Fairness, Fun and Challenging dont enter into that. This Responsibility he has *not* to the players, but to himself. Because if they dont come back for more, he needs to find something else to do that evening. Or sit alone at a table, wich sucks.

That said: its not to harsh (How can a DM be too harsh? he can kill you with a thought). He gets plothooks out of it too. I dont like "turn raise dead into an adventure" approach for a simple thing: "Do we get xp for it?" No, He died, you need him, tough luck. raising him is *not* going involve a reward.

2nd eds system shock roll was fine. Usually a quite high number if the character has half decent CON. Still tense moments when *those* dice fell...

magellan
2008-09-29, 04:48 PM
Also: Pointbuy and standard Array are for munchkins. Real players roll 3d6 in order.

Waspinator
2008-09-29, 07:55 PM
I kind of like how Dragonmech handles it. Basically, you have to succeed at a will save of DC 10 plus your level to come back. If you fail, you've been drafted by your god or some other outsider to help out in the wars between the planes. It actually makes total sense. Why would the gods so easily give up their most powerful fighters when they probably need the help otherwise they wouldn't bother enlisting people (like clerics) in their causes at all?

TheThan
2008-09-29, 08:30 PM
What?
DM writes himself a blanco check to abuse his powers?

Hellooo! he is the DM! He doesnt need to write a check for that. Its actually his Job to screw his players over whenever he so pleases. He *is* the power, he can not abuse it.
He starts writing errata? No! He makes necessary changes to a system some foolish overpaid DMs tinkered together that didnt take his wants and needs in account. If you learened that stuff like the bible its your problem, not his.

Too harsh to get screwed over for dying? Hellooooo! You died. Most people stay that way, so if you get a chance to come back plz dont complain about the movie on the flight! If you insist on that and mention the food too, we can send you back any time.

The DM has one responsibility: To make them come back for more. Fairness, Fun and Challenging dont enter into that. This Responsibility he has *not* to the players, but to himself. Because if they dont come back for more, he needs to find something else to do that evening. Or sit alone at a table, wich sucks.

That said: its not to harsh (How can a DM be too harsh? he can kill you with a thought). He gets plothooks out of it too. I dont like "turn raise dead into an adventure" approach for a simple thing: "Do we get xp for it?" No, He died, you need him, tough luck. raising him is *not* going involve a reward.

2nd eds system shock roll was fine. Usually a quite high number if the character has half decent CON. Still tense moments when *those* dice fell...

According to you, players should have to bow down before the Dm, lick the mud off of his shoes and be grateful for it, even if he’s being an ***hat. DMs used to be hard to find, now its not and they are nearly a dime a dozen, so the players can just say “ we’re going to find a new DM”, and then poof no DMing for that guy. If you try to be a tyrant, then you’ll find yourself needing a new group real fast. Sure the Dm has the right to Veto, but every veto he makes will be weighed heavily by his players, if they think he’s being unfair or unreasonable, poof he’s gone. DMs need to be fair to their players and reasonable people, otherwise they won’t be Dming very long.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-29, 08:59 PM
Hellooo! he is the DM! He doesnt need to write a check for that. Its actually his Job to screw his players over whenever he so pleases. He *is* the power, he can not abuse it.
He starts writing errata? No! He makes necessary changes to a system some foolish overpaid DMs tinkered together that didnt take his wants and needs in account. If you learened that stuff like the bible its your problem, not his.

The GM's power is not god-given like some medieval monarch's; the GM has precisely as much power as the players give him or her. The GM can, indeed, abuse this, and the players should promptly get up and inform him that either the abuse stops, the GM steps down and someone else takes over, or they all walk out and start a new game without the GM.

Rules changes in the middle of the game are really bad form, and rules changes without consulting the players are really stupid. The GM is not the only person playing; why should the GM change a rule he/she doesn't like but everyone else does? The rules are an agreement between the people playing, and changing them without communication is breaking the agreement.

Person_Man
2008-09-29, 09:04 PM
That doesn't work in 4e. It's a linear price cost while WBL is on an exponential scale. 40000 GP isn't a lot at level 20, but 2000 is more then a party of 5 can pay at level 1.

If you want to make the price higher I suggest 200*5^(level/5)

OK, I fully concede this point. An exponentially scaled raised dead cost would definitely work better. I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm sure your equation or some equivalent would work. In general, I'd like it to be as expensive as a nice magic item. But not so expensive that if you died 2-3 times over the course of 10 levels that you'd be totally nerfed compared to a Leader or Controller who stood in back and avoided direct contact with enemies like the plague.

Mewtarthio
2008-09-29, 09:15 PM
How about "the cost of a raise dead ritual is equal to the price of a magic item of the resurrectee's level"?

Eldmor
2008-09-29, 09:32 PM
The idea behind these house rules are good. The execution is waaaaay too harsh. I already died and I'm cutting into group treasure by being resurrected, I don't want to be punished again.
Several posts have suggested adverse effects of resurrection remain until a milestone is met. This seems like a smooth execution of the intention without cracking the whip on the chained PC's back. In addition, I would lighten the other effects of death.

ashmanonar
2008-09-29, 09:34 PM
I bet the head Death'd be pretty teed off if he knew.

Eh, I think Death is kinda busy right now.

The Ultimate Game (http://xkcd.com/393/)

ashmanonar
2008-09-29, 09:40 PM
Lucky.

My DM gives out FAR less than the WBL guidelines.

I'm 4th level and I can't even afford to buy a lvl 1 magic item. (I'm close, but still.) I had one for all of one session, when I pulled off my Great Escape. (I lost ALL of my posessions on that one, and gained a short sword and leather armor instead. was wearing scale and had a +1 Bastard sword.)

Granted, half of my money goes into the group health fund, but still... We've found a total of 2 magic items. a +1 Orb and a +1 Bastard Sword(lost). and a total of about 1600 gold between the four of us, 1200 of that on a recent mission.

Man, I hate low-wealth/low-magic (because those usually go hand-in-hand) games. I've never seen one that works, because the DM usually is on a power trip when they do want to play it. The game developers created a WBL guideline for a reason, and fudging with it makes things in the game not work.

The Glyphstone
2008-09-29, 09:51 PM
"Get off my lawn, you darn kids!"




:smallsmile::smallwink::smallbiggrin:

Swordguy
2008-09-29, 10:12 PM
How about "the cost of a raise dead ritual is equal to the price of a magic item of the resurrectee's level"?

Personally, I far prefer games without the capacity to Raise Dead at all - it's houseruled out of the game at campaign start out of nearly every game I run. Death is a BIG DEAL, and luck (bad rolls) can screw you over through no fault of your own. That's life. Deal with it. If you want to raise a dead friend, you're talking a really epic quest line to do so, not just a trip to the local cleric and gem shop. It's not impossible, but it's really tough, and will add something to the campaign and character interactions (both in and out of game - people aren't mean to each other at the table so often if they want to stay such good friends that their buddies will go way out of their way to raise their character after death). Naturally, evil powers have a greater ability to reverse death - the PCs can too if they're willing to do horrible things.


However, I rather like both this and Person Man's solution to the revolving door issue, especially the bit about the experience aging the character. I could probably be convinced to handle it this way, if my players cared enough to challenge the "no Raise Dead" decision. Since I haven't had a player complain about that house rule in over a decade, I'm not too concerned. My players always have the option to leave my games, and they know it. And they don't, even if I'm on some sort of "power trip" by changing the rules to make the game more palatable for me to play. I'm allowed to have fun too (contrary to statements such as one by TheThan). I have never had a player leave my game voluntarily.

skywalker
2008-09-29, 10:19 PM
Rules in the OP are dumb as... well, profanity isn't allowed here. Note, I did NOT say the OP is dumb.

Death sucks, and moreover, is boring. 4e doesn't want you to be bored. Any game where being bored is a very possible consequence of playing the game as it is supposed to be played sucks. Any game where a permanent penalty is a very possible consequence of playing the game as it is supposed to be played sucks.

I love the 4e raise dead rules.

Yakk
2008-09-29, 10:38 PM
That doesn't work in 4e. It's a linear price cost while WBL is on an exponential scale. 40000 GP isn't a lot at level 20, but 2000 is more then a party of 5 can pay at level 1.

If you want to make the price higher I suggest 200*5^(level/5)

Set it equal to 1/2 the price of a magic item of your character level.

Then again, that makes level a more explicit part of the world's game mechanics. You have to know the target's level to know how much it costs to raise them, down to the gold piece.

That is why I attempted to do the "you get a bonus to your roll from spending more", with a DC that scales faster than skill checks...

Colmarr
2008-09-29, 10:48 PM
Naturally, evil powers have a greater ability to reverse death - the PCs can too if they're willing to do horrible things.

Why do you consider it 'natural' that evil powers have greater ability to reverse death (by which I assume you are referring to raising the dead, not creating undead).

It strike me as antithetical to evil in fact. Evil wants you dead, because then your soul is theirs. Good, on the other hand, only has so many staunch servants, so it wants you around as long as possible...

Swordguy
2008-09-29, 11:26 PM
Why do you consider it 'natural' that evil powers have greater ability to reverse death (by which I assume you are referring to raising the dead, not creating undead).

It strike me as antithetical to evil in fact. Evil wants you dead, because then your soul is theirs. Good, on the other hand, only has so many staunch servants, so it wants you around as long as possible...

Reversing death is a wholely unnatural act. What's more natural than living and dying?

Besides, when I say easy, what I really mean is that you're trading someone else's life for yours. They die (pretty much always unwillingly) so you can live. That's evil if you're forcing them to do so. Evil powers get someone else's soul and give up yours (so the balance sheet is even) and they figure they'll get yours too, since you're evil for doing this (you'd have to accept the trade in the afterlife, so it's not something done without your knowledge). That's the "easy" way to get Raised from the Dead - sacrifice somebody else.

The other ways are hard because it's such an unnatural act to rise from the dead (which is different from being undead). Make sense?

Mewtarthio
2008-09-29, 11:38 PM
Why is natural Good? Why is unnatural Evil? In nature, animals hunt, kill, and eat each other, but cannibalism is not Good. Appendectomies are unnatural, but they are not Evil.

Swordguy
2008-09-29, 11:51 PM
Why is natural Good? Why is unnatural Evil? In nature, animals hunt, kill, and eat each other, but cannibalism is not Good. Appendectomies are unnatural, but they are not Evil.

I'm just going to start a Good v Evil threadjack/possible flame war by responding, so I'll just back out of the thread now.

I'm sorry - I'm just tired of those debates on these forums. Everyone has different definitions of G&E, and there's not going to be anything but flames and bitter recriminations from discussions of what exactly constitutes "Evil" or "Good". Suffice to say that I'm satisfied with my definitions, my players are satisfied with the game houserules that flow from such definitions, and it's always worked for the games I run.

That should be good enough.

TheThan
2008-09-30, 03:15 AM
*snipped due to length*


Now I never said you couldn’t have fun. I never said that you can’t adjust the game to fit your play style and for you to have fun. It’s when you become a tyrant and no one besides yourself is having fun, that there’s a problem. I have no problems with changes in the rules, as long as those changes are fair to the players. The rules presented by the OP are severely harsh and leave it open for him to abuse his players. Abuse is never a good thing.


I agree the revolving door of death is a bad idea, I like the idea that death is permanent, and I think making it permanent is the most elegant solution to the problem. It’s a fair house-rule. If you die, well then you die, which is better than the alternative the OP posted. Which is “you die, and if you get raised, I’m going to screw your character over”.

No body likes having the Dm screw with his character. That’s why a lot of players don’t like critical fumbles, because you’re being punished for the dice rolling bad. It’s not cool (though sometimes entertaining) to the other players. I view the “solution” the OP presented in the same light.

Changing the rules to fit a style of game that you wish to run is not a bad thing. I am working on a very extensive homebrewed Oriental adventures dnd world. I’ve had to make a lot of adjustments and changes. Every single one I’ve done to set the feel I wish to use and present to my players. I’m not trying to screw with my players, the rules presented by the OP certainly feel that way.

Khanderas
2008-09-30, 03:44 AM
One thought I had rolling in my head for the past few days was the idea that spells like raise dead don't work reliably unless preparations have been made. Mostly, hiding a portion of the persons soul in a jar which is later activated on their deceased body to revive them.


The ritual to create a soul jar is similar to casting a raise dead spell normally, but it targets a living person and harmlessly extracts a portion of their soul and hides it in a small object. Often in a ceramic egg which is then kept in a box. The receipiant of the spell must spend a healing surge (which is recovered with an extended rest) but suffers no other mechanical disadvantages (though some may find some portion of their essence missing, like the memory of their happiest day or their fondness for some person).

If that person dies, then their soul jar will attract the rest of their soul to it and hide them from Death. The soul jar may glow when the person dies thus alerting a companion entrusted with the jar of their friends demise. If the soul jar is brought within 5 feet of the dead persons body (or a portion of it) and broken then the soul returns to the body and repairs it as if the Raise Dead ritual had revived them normally. Complete with the penalties associated with it.

However, when the jar is broken then it only takes 5 minutes for them to be brought back instead of one hour. A person may have at maximum one jar in heroic tier, two in paragon tier, and three in epic tier. Each one costs the full price of casting the raise dead ritual.

If a soul jar is broken more than 5 feet from the dead body then the soul portion is lost to the great beyond (unless multiple soul jars exist in which case it is rescued by the remaining jars). If broken when the person still lives then they recover that stored bit of soul (no mechanical advantage but would recover whatever memory or 'bit of their being' they lost when storing it away). Soul jars have a limited tracking ability to seek out the dead body of the person to raise with them, this primarily help to make sure the person activating the jar knows that this is definatly the place to use the precious item.

A person who's soul is hidden in a soul jar but not restored to life is generally unable to interact with the world and exists in a sleeplike state with bits of dream to keep them company. Though some may be able to communicate to people who are either sleeping or within a short distance of their soul jar.

As the soul is a quantum thing unlimited by conventional physics, in a given group then no one soul jar contains 'more' soul than the others since they seem to all contain all of it at once. Though as is the case, sometimes things work differently for different people.

Eating another persons soul jar is not recommended, nor is force feeding your own soul jar to someone else. The results are not pretty to either party.

I like this version.

Kami2awa
2008-09-30, 05:06 AM
Sounds a bit like the ideas in Heroes of Horror, which were cool and thematically appropriate for a game of fantasy horror.

The DM has written himself a blank check to screw over any character that gets raised. I wouldn't put up with that sort of abuse of power.

"Bad stuff is going to happen to you, but you have no way of guessing what it might be, and I have a free hand to make it anything I want and mess up your character concept from the inside. Bwahaha!"

No, thanks.

I actually think these rules sound great, though the GM needs to be fair and probably think through how the penalties will affect the game, and probably discuss things with the players too. I particular like the RP ideas like the paladin's newfound cold-heartedness and the deal with the evil dragon god. Flavouring the penalties so that they are associated with the cause of death (vulnerability to cold) is also a nice idea; I'd go maybe with a less harsh one like a phobia of cold (RP only, or maybe some kind of test of willpower to face the fear).

After all, having your soul ripped out of your body and hurled to another plane, then pulled back by powerful magic probably isn't a nice experience.

Sebastian
2008-09-30, 05:26 AM
Being nerfed hard for dying just isn't very fun.

eh, that make me giggle. :smallbiggrin:

Now, on one hand 4e is a game where a PC would prefer to die than to lose his magic sword or other item, and with good reasons, losing your weapon give you bigger penalties and it is much more expensive to fix than simply being dead. Now call me old-fashioned but this keep striking me as a little odd.

On the other hand your friend overdid it a little, the player conseguences alone would make me choose to create a new character rather than raise the old one, add the caster conseguences and he would be better to ban resurrection altogether. Penalties for raise dead should be, IMO
a) not crippling,
b) focused more on make the character more interesting to play than to simply penalize him (example, tather than just give him 10 vulnerability to cold i'd say that he can't use second wind/a healing surge when in a cold enviroment or if it hit by a [cold] attack in that round) and
c) yet make death something to be feared more than losing your sword

WickerNipple
2008-09-30, 06:00 AM
The DM has written himself a blank check to screw over any character that gets raised.


Pretty much. Not my cuppa tea.

Kami2awa
2008-09-30, 08:39 AM
Pretty much. Not my cuppa tea.

Hasn't he got a blank check to screw over any character? Try playing Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia...

nightwyrm
2008-09-30, 10:37 AM
Hasn't he got a blank check to screw over any character? Try playing Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia...

I think it comes down to player expectation. In CoC or Paranoia, players expect to be screwed over and die a lot of times and that's part of the fun in those games. But in a modern, non-gygaxian D&D game, players don't expect to go through several characters per session. The DM can play D&D that way if he wants, but the DM should let the players know beforehand and have them agree to it.

Jayabalard
2008-09-30, 10:45 AM
The DM has written himself a blank check to screw over any character that gets raised. I wouldn't put up with that sort of abuse of power.The DM already has that blank check, and he doesn't need you to be dead before he can cash it in. Really, no amount of rules are going to protect you from a DM who's out to get you.

Yakk
2008-09-30, 10:53 AM
Soul jars, barring exceptional cases, are a bad dramatic idea.

You kill the BBEG -- and now you have to spend the next 6 months guarding the corpse, or otherwise defiling it.

With the 'cast this ritual near the moment of death, or be doomed', it allows an 'accidental' death to be recovered from (think of it as magic first aid), but it doesn't make "making sure the bad guy is dead" an exercise in anal-retentiveness.

Tormsskull
2008-09-30, 11:28 AM
The rules presented by the OP are severely harsh and leave it open for him to abuse his players. Abuse is never a good thing.


LOL. How, pray tell, do you abuse your players in a game of D&D? You're arguing from the stance that all DMs are evil, and the rules have to protect the players from that evil DM.

It doesn't work that way. The DM can do anything they want, anytime they want (in the game). As such, they can always 'abuse' (still laughing at that) their players.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-30, 11:32 AM
The DM already has that blank check, and he doesn't need you to be dead before he can cash it in. Really, no amount of rules are going to protect you from a DM who's out to get you.

Yes, but when the DM forgets to mention his houserules; then you know you can't trust him to DM fairly. He might as well say, "you rolled a natral 20, miss his AC". If he can't follow the rules then you can't trust him to let you act in character.

Obviously, if sometimes A means C and other times A means D; you are going to be utterly confused.

Houserules let a DM make A equal D without confusing players if you told said players.
He shouldn't be houseruling all other the place without telling others.

nightwyrm
2008-09-30, 12:25 PM
LOL. How, pray tell, do you abuse your players in a game of D&D? You're arguing from the stance that all DMs are evil, and the rules have to protect the players from that evil DM.

It doesn't work that way. The DM can do anything they want, anytime they want (in the game). As such, they can always 'abuse' (still laughing at that) their players.

And players can always vote with their feet. The gaming group can always decide to get someone more reasonable to be the DM.

Jayabalard
2008-09-30, 12:37 PM
Yes, but when the DM forgets to mention his houserules; then you know you can't trust him to DM fairly. Not so; I see no need for a GM to talk about house rules until they come up. I have 0 problem with a GM making on the spot rulings that outright contradict the rules. Nor am I worried about it if they aren't consistent with their rulings. I certainly don't expect the rules to protect me from an abusive GM... I simply don't play with those sort of people in the first place.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-30, 12:41 PM
Not so; I see no need for a GM to talk about house rules until they come up. I have 0 problem with a GM making on the spot rulings that outright contradict the rules. Nor am I worried about it if they aren't consistent with their rulings. I certainly don't expect the rules to protect me from an abusive GM... I simply don't play with those sort of people in the first place.

Wait, so you are totally okasy with a DM changing his ruling every day?

Today, Fireball damages only allies. Tomorrow only enemies.
And he won't tell till you cast it (no take backs).

Yeah, I'd have an issue with this houserule is never told till I cast. You do'nt, good for you, but I perfer my rulings to seem consistent.

MartinHarper
2008-09-30, 12:45 PM
How, pray tell, do you abuse your players in a game of D&D?

I think the second story in this post might qualify:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1268397#post1268397

TheThan
2008-09-30, 12:48 PM
LOL. How, pray tell, do you abuse your players in a game of D&D? You're arguing from the stance that all DMs are evil, and the rules have to protect the players from that evil DM.

It doesn't work that way. The DM can do anything they want, anytime they want (in the game). As such, they can always 'abuse' (still laughing at that) their players.


First off not all Dms (or players) are evil. In fact I’m sure most Dms are reasonable people.

But the fact remains that Dms possess more power than all the other players do. When a Dm becomes a tyrant, he is wielding his power in such a way that the other players at the table stop having fun. A tyrannical Dm may be vindictive towards his players when they finally do something cool (or even effective). He may retroactively change rules without the other player’s knowledge in order to prevent them from being able to defeat encounters. He fudges dice way too much, and only when it will benefit him. He’s out to “win” dnd or to “get” his players, regardless of the actions of the players or their characters. Basically he’s become a jerk (stronger words would run into the filter), and will ruin the game for the other players.

A Dm that isn’t a tyrant will not do such things. He will lay down the foundation of his game for the players to see, reveling all house rules and homebrewed stuff before the game starts. Any house rules that come up mid game will be introduced at the beginning of the session and explained in full (both the new rules and why they are being put into place). A non-tyrannical Dm will wield his power responsibly, and will not be “out to get” the pcs or “trying to win” the game.


Not so; I see no need for a GM to talk about house rules until they come up. I have 0 problem with a GM making on the spot rulings that outright contradict the rules. Nor am I worried about it if they aren't consistent with their rulings. I certainly don't expect the rules to protect me from an abusive GM... I simply don't play with those sort of people in the first place.

This is exactly what I’m talking about, if you are unhappy with the way the Dm is running the game, you are free to leave and find a DM that suits you. A Dm will explain his rulings so the players understand where he’s coming from and what they can expect in his game.

Jayabalard
2008-09-30, 01:26 PM
This is exactly what I’m talking about, if you are unhappy with the way the Dm is running the game, you are free to leave and find a DM that suits you. A Dm will explain his rulings so the players understand where he’s coming from and what they can expect in his game.I'm pretty sure that Tormsskull is talking about the same thing as well.


Wait, so you are totally okasy with a DM changing his ruling every day?Yes. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

Kami2awa
2008-09-30, 01:28 PM
I think it comes down to player expectation. In CoC or Paranoia, players expect to be screwed over and die a lot of times and that's part of the fun in those games. But in a modern, non-gygaxian D&D game, players don't expect to go through several characters per session. The DM can play D&D that way if he wants, but the DM should let the players know beforehand and have them agree to it.

That's a good point; the GM should always discuss the play style with the characters.

Blackfang108
2008-09-30, 01:34 PM
Man, I hate low-wealth/low-magic (because those usually go hand-in-hand) games. I've never seen one that works, because the DM usually is on a power trip when they do want to play it. The game developers created a WBL guideline for a reason, and fudging with it makes things in the game not work.

He has a long running one in 3.5 (Low wealth).

I'm level 22 and just recently put my AC above 20.

It's a HIGH magic campaign, however. Sorceror-style can automatically substitute any energy type except Pos/neg. They can study non spell list spells (If they make sense. eg: Duskblades can't research light-type spells, because there are none on the class list. I can get Sadism, however, so long as I obtain a proper focus.)

so it's a lot of fun.

Also, we had our first possibly recoverable death in campaign.

Wyndham, our Wizard, fell down a shaft and was violated by two shadow bats, shortly aftert tying the rope around himself.

We killed the bats and strapped the squshy one to the Paladin.

He has 19 game days left before he runs out of time. (the player is using a PC he's thinking of switching to.)

Saph
2008-10-12, 08:52 AM
For the curious (and those discussing it earlier), here's what the penalties turned out to be. Copied from our group's forum.


So both characters got raised - hurrah!

So everyone knows and is aware of the kinds of things they will need to consider when deciding whether to raise dead or not, these were the penalites to those who died

to Wulfgar - -1 con due to poison from the wererats blades weakening his system. his stomach will now not take potions due to the effects of the poison and so they no longer effect him.

to Fidda - some tiny shards of the skeleton are still lodged in her body - on a combat roll of 1 she becomes dazed (save ends) and takes 1d6 damage.

in addition here are the further 'penalties' for going through the raise dead.

Wulfgar/Nyithrin : agreed to give over to the Witch Queen half the life force required to revive Wulfgar - they both now wear a red pendant around their necks and must each give the Witch Queen 1/4 of Wulfgars XP.

Torik/Fidda : their lives and death are now bound together, when one falls unconscious the other becomes dazed until they are revived/stabilized. When one dies, the other dies too. A saving throw will negate this final effect.

I also want to remind everyone about the rule that getting knocked unconscious can have negative consequences (sometimes quite serious). so far its all been fairly minor, but it won't be for ever!! Going through these campaigns will inevitably leave some characters with battle-scars/wounds/mental difficulties etc.

- Saph

DM Raven
2008-10-12, 01:38 PM
I think he's being way too easy on them to even allow a raise dead. I play D&D hardcore style...you die, you start over at level 1! Wait fun...the players are supposed to be having fun? Since when do DMs have to cater to players, is this in some new edition book?

But seriously, I've never liked the D&D raise dead rules...I see why the raise dead spell needs to exist, but it takes away from the scene you're trying to create when a major character (PC or NPC) dies and one of your players says, "Come on, just grab the body and we can get her ressed in town" after a major character or love interest just died. I think all forms of raise dead take away from the feel of the story and cheapen the impact of death. "I pay some gold and get a temporary -1 to all my rolls," way too carebear.

On the other hand, D&D is a game and it's important that people have fun while playing it. I'm still working on my own houserules for death...I was thinking maybe the price for death is the loss of one point from an ability score of the player's choice as well as the price of the ritual.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-12, 01:43 PM
But seriously, I've never liked the D&D raise dead rules...I see why the raise dead spell needs to exist, but it takes away from the scene you're trying to create when a major character (PC or NPC) dies and one of your players says, "Come on, just grab the body and we can get her ressed in town" after a major character or love interest just died.

That no longer works in 4th.

Only special people can be raised so DM just says: Gues, it wasn't her fate to come back.

DM Raven
2008-10-12, 03:22 PM
That no longer works in 4th.

Only special people can be raised so DM just says: Gues, it wasn't her fate to come back.

Which is another gripe I have with 4th...I believe characters should start on an even playing field with the NPCs and earn their "special" status. I really don't like the idea that PCs are these uber beings that have a ton of healing surges, can be brought back to life, and for the most part still exist within a population without being noticed. I guarantee you if someone started coming back to life in the real work, the whole world would know about it pretty quickly...and I try to base all my games in a realistic as possible setting.

FoE
2008-10-12, 03:30 PM
I think he's being way too easy on them to even allow a raise dead. I play D&D hardcore style...you die, you start over at level 1! Wait fun...the players are supposed to be having fun? Since when do DMs have to cater to players, is this in some new edition book?

You think you're hardcore? You don't know what hardcore is. When PCs die in my games, their players never get to play D&D again. Not just in my campaigns ... I mean EVER.

Now you know why I keep a loaded gun at my table.

chiasaur11
2008-10-12, 03:45 PM
You think you're hardcore? You don't know what hardcore is. When PCs die in my games, their players never get to play D&D again. Not just in my campaigns ... I mean EVER.

Now you know why I keep a loaded gun at my table.

When players die in MY game, they get to have never played at all!

That's why I keep a time machine at the gaming table.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-12, 07:33 PM
Which is another gripe I have with 4th...I believe characters should start on an even playing field with the NPCs and earn their "special" status. I really don't like the idea that PCs are these uber beings that have a ton of healing surges, can be brought back to life, and for the most part still exist within a population without being noticed. I guarantee you if someone started coming back to life in the real work, the whole world would know about it pretty quickly...and I try to base all my games in a realistic as possible setting.

But this fixes the Raise dead problem you raised (no pun).

Now they can't go:"Come on, just grab the body and we can get her ressed in town"

DM Raven
2008-10-12, 11:21 PM
But this fixes the Raise dead problem you raised (no pun).

Now they can't go:"Come on, just grab the body and we can get her ressed in town"

Two steps forward and four steps back.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-12, 11:25 PM
You think you're hardcore? You don't know what hardcore is. When PCs die in my games, their players never get to play D&D again. Not just in my campaigns ... I mean EVER.

Now you know why I keep a loaded gun at my table.

So DnD Jack Chick editon?:smalltongue:

Starbuck_II
2008-10-13, 06:42 AM
Two steps forward and four steps back.
Let's do the time warp again?!

exodus_dragon
2008-10-13, 06:51 AM
Which is another gripe I have with 4th...I believe characters should start on an even playing field with the NPCs and earn their "special" status. I really don't like the idea that PCs are these uber beings that have a ton of healing surges, can be brought back to life, and for the most part still exist within a population without being noticed. I guarantee you if someone started coming back to life in the real work, the whole world would know about it pretty quickly...and I try to base all my games in a realistic as possible setting.



I dotn want to sound rude but you cant apply real world physics in a game that has any magical magnitude whatsoever its just impossible. real world mechanics can not be applied to the D&D world. I am a DM myself and i quite enjoy the 4ed set up. as for my group they just reached the level where they can use the raise dead ability. haha but bein a cruel dm that i am, i ensure that they must have a lot of ....well...a lot of Ingredients and components to perform such a task. also i apply harsh negatives to those raised from the dead. sometimes even penalizing the caster that raised them saying that it used some of there life essence to do so. As far as i see it Raise dead and the healing surges are not oober at all, especially the surges since they are only usable out of combat except for Second wind which is the only one that can be used during combat and it takes a standard action to do so. plus the game is built on a much more brutal system sure the players have more life but so do the monsters and damage thats dished out is much higher by both NPC and PC.

exodus_dragon
2008-10-14, 08:03 AM
Can you do either? I'm a bit at a loss as to what could be called über if raising the dead isn't!

For starters Healing Surgers CAN NOT be used during combat, except for Second Wind (which uses a heal surge) and it can only be used once per encounter. ...According to the rules... Healing surgers arent really that great. there are very few things that allow you to heal during combat. exceptions are Clerics (yes they are still very very needed), special class powers or abilities that allow the use of a healing surge, and potions (which arent really good for 50g). Other than that there arent any other ways to heal unless DM says something and changes the heal surge rule.

Secondly Raise Dead isnt that good since it requires you to be LVL 8 to get it in the first place. And it comes with consequences when you raise some one from the dead. Also the cost of raising some one is still quite high.

Raising the dead is very nice indeed. But the components arent readily available to use especially if your in a dungeon. Youll have to first escape the dungeon to even get back to town. And then not all towns (depending on the DM) have access to a caster than can raise someone from the dead. Heck to further make it so less UBER... you can as a DM just say that the spell either is very very rare and cant be learned or they have to travel a very far distance like in OOTS to get the player raised. If a DM is good (not trying to throw stone) then he will make sure that that kind of spell is limited or hard to come by. On most occasions some players do not like to wait so long to play again and would rather reroll a new character, or the DM allows the Raise dead ritual to be easily accessed.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-14, 08:12 AM
For the curious (and those discussing it earlier), here's what the penalties turned out to be. Copied from our group's forum.


-1 con, 25% experience loss and no longer able to use healing potions as a penalty for dying, something that happens all the time in DND?

Ask this DM why is he playing 4e if he doesn't get some of the most important concepts behind it.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 08:49 AM
there are very few things that allow you to heal during combat.
Well, except for Leader characters, who have lots of healing powers; and if there's one role you'll really need, it's a leader. I agree that second wind sucks (unless you're a dwarf) as do potions, but then I didn't really expect all that many ways to heal other than by bringing a healer along.



Secondly Raise Dead isnt that good since it requires you to be LVL 8 to get it in the first place. And it comes with consequences when you raise some one from the dead. Also the cost of raising some one is still quite high.
It comes cheap (at 100 gp) and with barely any consequences. Also, according to RAW, you can just write "500 gp worth of divine ritual components" on your character sheet, and use them to perform whatever.

I agree that it's more fun if the DM makes raising something rare that requires a quest, but according to RAW, raising is going to be really really easy.

Roderick_BR
2008-10-14, 09:39 AM
You think you're hardcore? You don't know what hardcore is. When PCs die in my games, their players never get to play D&D again. Not just in my campaigns ... I mean EVER.
Sounds just like bad DMing to me... :smalltongue:

exodus_dragon
2008-10-14, 09:50 AM
in my 4ed campaign (i posted it for feed back on another thread) there is a retarded paladin who keeps trying to be a rogue. he has died thusfar 2 times. first time he resed was because the party had found a Fenix Down like item. and resurected him. the second time he died He tried to open a chest without letting the rogue in the party search for traps and a pit opened and he fell and went !!SPLAT!!. lol then the wizard used his tenser floating disk to go get his body. prior to this they found a fountain that yeilded a small supply of special healing potion that could bring the dead back as well. they used that vial on him. but i only alowed them to because the paladin is retarded and its quite humorous that he keeps dieing. He almost died a third time but but made his saving throw.( lol COLD zombies are wicked and have a lovely AURA). any way thats my story. lol

horseboy
2008-10-14, 11:01 AM
I play D&D hardcore style...you die, you start over at level 1! BAH! BAH I say! Until you play a system where a 10th level dwarven cleric can die from a 3 foot fall, I'm not going to be impressed at claims of "hardcore."

Jayabalard
2008-10-14, 11:12 AM
-1 con, 25% experience loss and no longer able to use healing potions as a penalty for dyingNo, that's the penalty for being ressurected... dying carries a much stiffer penalty: -all con (as well as str, dex, int wis, and cha), 100% experience loss, and no longer able to use healing potions, wands, most other magic items, bows, swords, doors, cooking utensils, your limbs, etc


something that happens all the time in DND?
As for happening all the time in D&D.... I suspect that it's kind of game specific; for some people, it's probably a pretty rare occurrence.


Ask this DM why is he playing 4e if he doesn't get some of the most important concepts behind it.I'm not sure where you're drawing this; nothing I've read suggests that he doesn't get any of the important concepts behind 4e. He may not agree with certain "important concepts of 4e" but lack of understanding is not really implied.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-14, 11:29 AM
BAH! BAH I say! Until you play a system where a 10th level dwarven cleric can die from a 3 foot fall, I'm not going to be impressed at claims of "hardcore."

But that isn't just not hardcore...that is plainly unrealististic.

Jayabalard
2008-10-14, 11:30 AM
But that isn't just not hardcore...that is plainly unrealististic.it's unlikely as hell, but not really unrealistic.

Blackfang108
2008-10-14, 11:38 AM
it's unlikely as hell, but not really unrealistic.

because a game with Elves, trolls, and talking animals is soooo realistic.

FoE
2008-10-14, 01:11 PM
You think you're hardcore? You don't know what hardcore is. When PCs die in my games, their players never get to play D&D again. Not just in my campaigns ... I mean EVER.

Now you know why I keep a loaded gun at my table.


So DnD Jack Chick editon? :smalltongue:

No, that's where I send them to the Seven Hells even if they were reasonably nice PCs.

"So you broke into the dragon's lair and stole his loot, did you? Then I have a little treasure for you — some AIDS."

Jayabalard
2008-10-14, 01:29 PM
because a game with Elves, trolls, and talking animals is soooo realistic./shrug

I have no idea why you're responding to me about this... if you'll check back at the context, I'm pointing out that someone dieing from a 3' fall isn't actually unrealistic at all.

Besides, talking animals are quite realistic for certain values of "talking" and for certain values of "animals"... humans are animals, and they quite clearly talk, and many other animals have what can be referred to as languages even though they're much simpler than human languages. So that's not really a good counter.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 01:32 PM
It depends what kind of realistic you are thinking of.

Some forms of realism tend to be insisted on by most players. Gravity, for one. A big world where creatures described as "wolves" "lions" "rats" can choose whether or not gravity works for them, might be a bit of an immersion-breaker.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-14, 01:42 PM
I agree that it's more fun if the DM makes raising something rare that requires a quest, but according to RAW, raising is going to be really really easy.

So DnD business as usual?

I dunno, this (OP) seems kinda draconic. Generally speaking I prefer people die when dramatically appropriate, perhaps, but that chance of death and the mechanics-based challenge of stayin' alive (God dammit, now that's stuck in my head) isn't really why I'm playing.

It /was/ a nice effort to tie the new weaknesses into what killed the characters though. Can Saph tell me the concept behind why he wanted raises to be painful though? It seems like charging a bunch would do it, after all, so there's got to be a motive

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 01:48 PM
So DnD business as usual?
Yes :smallbiggrin:


I dunno, this (OP) seems kinda draconic.
I agree, actually. I mean, I agree with the sentiment that death is not meaningful enough in 4E, but I also find this to be an overreaction.

What I'd personally do is (1) make the rest of the party quest a few hours to actually get the raise, and (2) give the raisee and/or raiser a story-based restriction, e.g. geasa. I find having to repay a debt to deity X to be more interesting than getting a -1 to your dice rolls.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-14, 02:00 PM
I agree, actually. I mean, I agree with the sentiment that death is not meaningful enough in 4E, but I also find this to be an overreaction.
I kinda think DnD undervalues it in general, really, since you can die to the nothing goblins while looking for a bag of sp. I mean, offhand, Bliss Stage guarantees you success in one of the group's goals if someone dies in combat...


What I'd personally do is (1) make the rest of the party quest a few hours to actually get the raise, and (2) give the raisee and/or raiser a story-based restriction, e.g. geasa. I find having to repay a debt to deity X to be more interesting than getting a -1 to your dice rolls.

I like 2. 1 isn't so bad if the dead guy has some sort of guest to play as though; Just because you're dead is no reason to stay out of hte fun!

Krrth
2008-10-14, 02:45 PM
Well, those penalties do seem to be a but harsh. I'd go with something t hat either wears off over time, or that you can buy off.

Perhaps something like what Paladium did: When you get raised, you have to roll on the insanity table. If you get one, it relates to how you died. Every time you die (per tier), you get a penality to the roll. Remove one insanity per level in which you didn't die. Or spend a feat. Or even go to therapy.

exodus_dragon
2008-10-15, 08:16 AM
I think one very big and importing Variable we are forgetting here is that its all DM decision. DM makes the call on how the rules really work. All the books are more Guide Lines of how to run the game rather than Set in Stone rules. Sure following the rules makes the game simple and it limits imagination. Though DM's that tweak the "Guidelines" can make any changes necessary and make the game more fun...or well worse.

Saph
2008-10-15, 09:48 AM
It /was/ a nice effort to tie the new weaknesses into what killed the characters though. Can Saph tell me the concept behind why he wanted raises to be painful though? It seems like charging a bunch would do it, after all, so there's got to be a motive

Like I said, it's not my campaign - I'm running a 3.5 Red Hand of Doom game at the moment. The DM put his reasons up in the OP, and has pretty much stuck to them since then in the discussions with his players as far as I know . . . several weren't that happy, but they've had to put up with it.

- Saph

Charity
2008-10-15, 10:27 AM
What I'd personally do is (1) make the rest of the party quest a few hours to actually get the raise, and (2) give the raisee and/or raiser a story-based restriction, e.g. geasa. I find having to repay a debt to deity X to be more interesting than getting a -1 to your dice rolls.

I don't like leaving players out of the action if I can avoid it, but I must agree that story based restrictions >> than character crippling.


Like I said, it's not my campaign - I'm running a 3.5 Red Hand of Doom game at the moment. The DM put his reasons up in the OP, and has pretty much stuck to them since then in the discussions with his players as far as I know . . . several weren't that happy, but they've had to put up with it.

- Saph

Are you finding that RHoD is really bloddy deadly? I ran it for my mates and I was killing them with horrible regularity, the defence of Brindol for example is just one over CRed encounter after another with no time to draw breath in between.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-15, 11:52 AM
Like I said, it's not my campaign - I'm running a 3.5 Red Hand of Doom game at the moment. The DM put his reasons up in the OP, and has pretty much stuck to them since then in the discussions with his players as far as I know . . . several weren't that happy, but they've had to put up with it.

- Saph

Well, I know it's not yours, just felt like I was missing something.


I think one very big and importing Variable we are forgetting here is that its all DM decision. DM makes the call on how the rules really work. All the books are more Guide Lines of how to run the game rather than Set in Stone rules. Sure following the rules makes the game simple and it limits imagination. Though DM's that tweak the "Guidelines" can make any changes necessary and make the game more fun...or well worse.
Thinking he made a bad decision is not the same thing as thinking it was not his decision to make. It happens all the time.

Saph
2008-10-15, 06:19 PM
Are you finding that RHoD is really bloddy deadly? I ran it for my mates and I was killing them with horrible regularity, the defence of Brindol for example is just one over CRed encounter after another with no time to draw breath in between.

I've already covered my bases by telling them at the start of the game "this module is incredibly lethal to the point of being actively sadistic". Given that they immediately started complaining about the difficulty of the very first encounter (the hobgoblin ambush) I'm pretty sure they didn't listen. I'll be impressed if they get to Brindol at all.

- Saph

horseboy
2008-10-16, 12:11 AM
Are you finding that RHoD is really bloody deadly? I ran it for my mates and I was killing them with horrible regularity, the defense of Brindol for example is just one over CRed encounter after another with no time to draw breath in between.If that's the one I think it is, I don't remember us having any trouble with it, up until the very last thing. That dragon with the wands. The DM still says that was built for nothing but to cause TPK and refused to run it. Of course, I don't really remember much of that one. It was a marathon session and I was very drunk and screaming about crashing my war turkey into things.

exodus_dragon
2008-10-16, 05:43 AM
Mortal campaigns IMO are some of the best ones because if you dont put a high risk of death in it players can tend to get a bit lazy with there roleplaying ability. Or they become stupid and just do things thinking they cant or wont die from them.


I had one player who had made a Knight one time. He got pissed off (pardon my french) because he made it for outside fighting and not for dungeons unfortunately the story ended up puttin him in a dungeon so he said the he fell on his sword me at first i argued with him wondering why he wanted to do that. he kept saying it was because his character wasnt built for dungeons. Me being the DM just told him that there are other players in the group and he had to tuff it out. Finally the other players convinced him that he should play as that. So bein cruel and pissed at that point for having to have had the argument in thr first place made him make a balance check ( of course he botched) so i said he fell on his sword and instantly died. Players dont argue much with me any more hahaha.


thats completely off topic but i thought it would be a funny story to tell. I still think a hight mortality rate in a game makes the players play better and be more alert and on a good role play path. i grow weiry of these constant hack and slash ideas a lot of players get. not everything is meant to be killed and as i run my campaigns just because the book says its evil doesnt make it so in my world. especially if they are lvl 1 characters they technically dont know any better.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-16, 06:49 AM
No, that's the penalty for being ressurected... dying carries a much stiffer penalty: -all con (as well as str, dex, int wis, and cha), 100% experience loss, and no longer able to use healing potions, wands, most other magic items, bows, swords, doors, cooking utensils, your limbs, etc


Semantics. You know what I meant.



As for happening all the time in D&D.... I suspect that it's kind of game specific; for some people, it's probably a pretty rare occurrence.


DND is a game where you can die not because you made a mistake, but because you were unlucky - character death is bound to happen in most games where the DM doesn't run combat in EZMode.



I'm not sure where you're drawing this; nothing I've read suggests that he doesn't get any of the important concepts behind 4e. He may not agree with certain "important concepts of 4e" but lack of understanding is not really implied.

Seeing that most of 4e is built on the base that the whole group will be balanced (and therefore death carries no experience penalty, for example, because everyone should have the same level) and that long-term or permanent mechanical drawbacks are rare... why is he playing a game built on concepts he disagrees with?

MartinHarper
2008-10-16, 01:11 PM
DND is a game where you can die not because you made a mistake, but because you were unlucky - character death is bound to happen in most games where the DM doesn't run combat in EZMode.

Well, 4e combats take more rounds, so players have more opportunities to run away if they think there is a chance of death.


Most of 4e is built on the base that the whole group will be balanced

I'm not sure it is. That's certainly the advice given in the DMG as to how to run an enjoyable game, but I don't think the mechanics demand that all characters are the same level. Maybe the minion rules?

Blackfang108
2008-10-16, 01:34 PM
Well, 4e combats take more rounds, so players have more opportunities to run away if they think there is a chance of death.

Usually, but let me tell you how long the first combat-oriented PC death happened:

1. Trap opens under our Wizard's feet. He falls about 40ft and takes high damage. He's bloodied, and close to unconcious.
2. 3 Shadow-bats(or something like that) attack the wizard from the shadows after he ties a rope around his waist. He's now VERY dead.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-16, 02:01 PM
Usually, but let me tell you how long the first combat-oriented PC death happened:

1. Trap opens under our Wizard's feet. He falls about 40ft and takes high damage. He's bloodied, and close to unconcious.
2. 3 Shadow-bats(or something like that) attack the wizard from the shadows after he ties a rope around his waist. He's now VERY dead.

Was this a Paragon level game? the DMg warns not to do 40 feet falls at low levels.

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 03:29 PM
because a game with Elves, trolls, and talking animals is soooo realistic.

that is no reason for it to not be consistent and logical
from
EE

Jayabalard
2008-10-17, 05:10 PM
Semantics. You know what I meant.No, the difference is a bit more than semantics; I'm pointing out that it's not the penalty for dieing... it's the penalty for being resurrected.


DND is a game where you can die not because you made a mistake, but because you were unlucky - character death is bound to happen in most games where the DM doesn't run combat in EZMode.I don't see how this contradicts what I said in the slightest; it sounds like you're agreeing that death being part of D&D is highly reliant on playstyle.


Seeing that most of 4e is built on the base that the whole group will be balanced (and therefore death carries no experience penalty, for example, because everyone should have the same level) and that long-term or permanent mechanical drawbacks are rare... why is he playing a game built on concepts he disagrees with?None of this implies a lack of understanding on the DM's part. As to why he would do that, who knows. I've played in many systems where I've disagreed with fundamental portions of the rules and wound up houseruling heavily.

Asbestos
2008-10-17, 06:52 PM
Usually, but let me tell you how long the first combat-oriented PC death happened:

1. Trap opens under our Wizard's feet. He falls about 40ft and takes high damage. He's bloodied, and close to unconcious.
2. 3 Shadow-bats(or something like that) attack the wizard from the shadows after he ties a rope around his waist. He's now VERY dead.

Wait, your wizard was taking point here? That fool!

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 07:35 PM
is this thread broken? It says it has a 5th page but i can't access it
from
EE

Kurald Galain
2008-10-18, 04:21 AM
is this thread broken? It says it has a 5th page but i can't access it

No, it's a bug in the forum software. If a thread displays 25 posts per page, and has exactly 75 posts, it will assume there's a fourth page when in fact there's not.