4th Edition Question

[DM Raven]

Hey all,

So I had recently posted to a thread where someone responded and told me that only PCs and major NPCs can be brought back to life in 4th edition. I'm scouring both rulebooks and can't find this rule in either...can someone site a source?

<3

[Eorran]

I don't recall seeing anything like that. However, the rules do give second wind / healing surges to PCs only, and action points to PCs or Elite/Solo monsters only. That may have been the source of the idea. Also, monsters die at 0 hp, instead of -(bloodied).
In any case, the 4e books do encourage you to change any rule you dislike.

[Morty]

There's no such rule, but there was an article before 4ed's release in which WoTC suggested that NPCs shouldn't be raised unless it's dramatically appropriate.

[Beleriphon]

There's no such rule, but there was an article before 4ed's release in which WoTC suggested that NPCs shouldn't be raised unless it's dramatically appropriate.

Raise dead ritual as well. Its sort of says as much.

[TheOOB]

I imagine it's something like 3e, most souls find their place in the after life(for good or for ill)and either don't want to, or don't have the willpower to come back.

[greenknight]

Raise dead ritual as well. Its sort of says as much.

To me, the text of Raise Dead seems to indicate the more levels you have, the harder it becomes to raise someone. So non-adventurers would be some of the easiest people to raise. But that brings up an interesting question - what's the cost if you want to raise a monster (especially one intended to be fought by paragon/epic level PCs)?

[Starsinger]

To me, the text of Raise Dead seems to indicate the more levels you have, the harder it becomes to raise someone. So non-adventurers would be some of the easiest people to raise. But that brings up an interesting question - what's the cost if you want to raise a monster (especially one intended to be fought by paragon/epic level PCs)?

Monsters have levels too.

[EndlessWrath]

resurrect is a powerful spell. and its very costly. I doubt someone would use such a spell to bring back a low leveled soldier or a gate keeper that died. It gets to the point that only important NPCs and PCs are worth such a cost... because otherwise It'd be super easy to bring people back.

[Kurald Galain]

resurrect is a powerful spell. and its very costly.

It's only costly for NPCs. High-level player characters could easily resurrect an entire village without batting an eye over the price.

[Sebastian]

Raise dead ritual as well. Its sort of says as much.

No, it doesn't.

It says that sometime the gods, or whoever, can stop someone from being raised, but with the way it is phrased I read it as an exception, not as the rule. Something like "%HERO% pissed off the god XYZ so much that he stop him from being resurrected".

And by logic if the more powerful you are the more expensive it is to be raised, it follow that the less powerful you are the cheaper it is. you should be able to raise a peasant for 50 GP or less *special offer* only today, raise the whole village for 500 gp. :) .

[Tsotha-lanti]

Also, monsters die at 0 hp, instead of -(bloodied).

Die or get knocked out, at the whim of the player whose character scores the final hit. (Of course, I think we can assume that creatures that have a death-related effect are intended to die.)

NPCs shouldn't be raised unless it's dramatically appropriate.

Nothing should happen, in any RPG, unless it's dramatically appropriate.

[Charity]

Nagora If you disagree totally then you are saying only dramatically inappropriate things should ever happen in any RPG...
Which while amusing might get a bit old after a while.

They have tried to put some more control into the hands of the DM over who gets raised and who doesn't. If it ruins your plot that when they find their patrons body they just raise him from the dead and go home for tea then Lo and behold you get to say it doesn't work not a massive big deal, but it allows the DM a bit of extra leeway on plot devices.

[Tsotha-lanti]

They have tried to put some more control into the hands of the DM over who gets raised and who doesn't. If it ruins your plot that when they find their patrons body they just raise him from the dead and go home for tea then Lo and behold you get to say it doesn't work not a massive big deal, but it allows the DM a bit of extra leeway on plot devices.

I don't think the amount of control has changed significantly. The DM always had the power to say that the subject, PC or NPC, was not willing to return or had no compelling reason to return, being that they were in paradise. (Or that, say, their soul has been snatched up by fiends. That happens a lot if you were evil, I hear, and fiends don't tend to let the dratted things go.)

As you know, I'm saying that dramatic appropriateness should not enter the equation once play starts - what happens should follow logically from previous events. Otherwise the DM is railroading.

There will almost always be almost infinite equally valid and logical things that might happen. The most dramatically appropriate (interesting, fun, good for gameplay and the continuation of fun and gameplay) should happen.

[Charity]

As you know, I'm saying that dramatic appropriateness should not enter the equation once play starts - what happens should follow logically from previous events. Otherwise the DM is railroading.

Yeah, just giving you some gip, you know you love it... and I think it would be hard to pull off even in a one off.

Well, the issue is that the DM is being arbitrary which leaves the players with no clear idea as to what actions will or will not work on a day-to-day basis. Which is not a good thing, IMO. If there's an in-game reason for raise dead to fail (worshipper of Odin or Wee Jas, for example) then that's fine and the PCs can investigate and discover that for themselves. But just overruling a PC's power because it makes a "better" plot just means your plot stank to begin with.

Not giving out that power in the first place =/= overruling it.
As you the DM arbitarily decide the 'in-game reasons' when envisioning your plot, I don't really see what the difference is, you can just tack a bit of plot on if the PC's decide to pursue the whys and wherefores.

When players find short cuts through the plot, let them have them and do a tighter plot next time; never punish them because you screwed up.

The logical conclusion to this line of reasoning is undesirable to me, if as a DM you have to armourplate your plots so you can use the adventure you just spent time/effort/money on it seems quite restrictive and likely to make folk reticent about DMing.
Also losing a loved one is a staple of fantasy plot devices, not being able to use that after x level would be a poor show.

I don't think the amount of control has changed significantly. The DM always had the power to say that the subject, PC or NPC, was not willing to return or had no compelling reason to return, being that they were in paradise. (Or that, say, their soul has been snatched up by fiends. That happens a lot if you were evil, I hear, and fiends don't tend to let the dratted things go.)

I never implied it had changed significantly, in fact I said it was "not a massive big deal, but it allows the DM a bit of extra leeway on plot devices."
So er, I agree

[Jayabalard]

Nagora If you disagree totally then you are saying only dramatically inappropriate things should ever happen in any RPG...
Which while amusing might get a bit old after a while.

Odd, I don't see a post by Nagora in this thread...

But disagreeing with the idea that only dramatically appropriate things should happen in games does not mean that he thinkgs that only dramatically appropriate things should happen in RPGs... it means that both dramatically appropriate and dramatically inappropriate things should happen; This implies that the person believes that the dramatic appropriateness or lack thereof should not have any control over what happens in the game.

[Charity]

His exact words... and indeed post was

"Disagree totally" I was just lampooning his words not his stance, I can sort of understand your confusion as all his posts have vanished... prob because he's just been making sockpuppet accounts to get round a ban or some such (and not being very subtle about it).
I am of course just Rawhide's sockpuppet account but don't tell

[Morty]

Nothing should happen, in any RPG, unless it's dramatically appropriate.

Unless, of course, dramatic tension isn't a priority. Sometimes "it makes sense" is much more important. In my games, preety much always, in fact. In the end though, raising the dead doesn't look any different in 4ed than it does in 3ed. If it makes sense for a villain or NPC to come back, nothing in the rules stops them from doing so.
Also, it looks like few posts disappeared.

[Artanis]

Unless, of course, dramatic tension isn't a priority. Sometimes "it makes sense" is much more important. In my games, preety much always, in fact. In the end though, raising the dead doesn't look any different in 4ed than it does in 3ed. If it makes sense for a villain or NPC to come back, nothing in the rules stops them from doing so.
Also, it looks like few posts disappeared.

In which case you'd probably be raising or not-raising the same people anyways. It doesn't matter if raising Joe Q. Redshirt only costs 50 gold when you can replace him for the same amount (or less) AND get that much more use out of the time your casters otherwise would've spent on the ritual.

[Morty]

In which case you'd probably be raising or not-raising the same people anyways. It doesn't matter if raising Joe Q. Redshirt only costs 50 gold when you can replace him for the same amount (or less) AND get that much more use out of the time your casters otherwise would've spent on the ritual.

Well yeah, sure, redshirts don't get raised because they don't have the means to do this. The "making sense or drama" dillemma appears when some big fish who's able to get a cleric to cast a spell or ritual gets dead and while it'd make sense for him or her to come back, it'd be also non-dramatic. What I agree with is that there's no difference between editions here.

[erikun]

There's plenty of reason: the cleric wants the BBEG's job instead! Heck, if you're working with an evil cleric, do you really think his promise to raise you if you die is worth much?

Also, there was never a rule that you couldn't raise NPCs. I believe you're thinking of the pre-4e splatbooks, which said something to the effect of "the DM should not generally raise NPCs, because raise dead is generally reserved as a PC privilege." It was never restricted to PCs only.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Odd, I don't see a post by Nagora in this thread...

You also no longer see any posts by Flipping Eck - a mystery!