This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense  (Read 3888 times)

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2020, 11:34:59 PM »
Yep, because ADnD does not have Raise Dead, Resurrection or Reincarnation.
Typically these were not available in the market for tuppence next to the applecart.

Dude, the spells are right there in the PHB. 

The listed cost is thruppence and a bent copper spoon.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Kyle Aaron

  • high-minded hack
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9487
  • high-minded hack
    • The Viking Hat GM
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2020, 12:01:00 AM »
So is wish spell and creeping doom, that doesn't mean anyone has easy access to them.

Raise dead is a 5th level cleric spell, requiring a 9th level cleric to cast - that's a high priest, someone running their own temple with priests under them. There won't be many of these. Both the person requesting and the deceased would have to be devout followers of the relevant god for the deceased to be raised. Not coincidentally, quest is also a 5th level cleric spell - there may be more than a price in gold to pay.

Resurrection is a 7th level cleric spell requiring a 16th level cleric with 18 or greater wisdom. There will not be many of these around.

Reincarnation is a 7th level druid spell requiring a 12th level druid. There are only ever at most nine 12th level druids, with each having achieved or maintained their position by besting other 12th level druids in hand-to-hand combat.

Just because the spell is in the PHB does not mean the party has ready access to it. It may actually require some effort, or even be impossible. If it does not require effort, that's fine - but that's not the default assumption of AD&D1e. From which we can conclude that in vanilla AD&D1e, characters who die tend to stay dead. Thus, if you want to follow Pundit's advice to occasionally let PCs die, then AD&D1e is a better choice than later editions.

Now, if you want them to "die" and come straight back without trouble, or never die at all, that's fine - but that's not the advice here. If you want a system where characters who die tend to stay dead, then you can either just take 1e as it is, or take a later system and fiddle with it a lot. Fiddling is tedious and reduces time better spent talking shit, rolling the dice and eating snacks.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2020, 01:02:21 AM »
So is wish spell and creeping doom, that doesn't mean anyone has easy access to them.

Raise dead is a 5th level cleric spell, requiring a 9th level cleric to cast - that's a high priest, someone running their own temple with priests under them. There won't be many of these. Both the person requesting and the deceased would have to be devout followers of the relevant god for the deceased to be raised. Not coincidentally, quest is also a 5th level cleric spell - there may be more than a price in gold to pay.

Resurrection is a 7th level cleric spell requiring a 16th level cleric with 18 or greater wisdom. There will not be many of these around.

Reincarnation is a 7th level druid spell requiring a 12th level druid. There are only ever at most nine 12th level druids, with each having achieved or maintained their position by besting other 12th level druids in hand-to-hand combat.

Just because the spell is in the PHB does not mean the party has ready access to it. It may actually require some effort, or even be impossible. If it does not require effort, that's fine - but that's not the default assumption of AD&D1e. From which we can conclude that in vanilla AD&D1e, characters who die tend to stay dead. Thus, if you want to follow Pundit's advice to occasionally let PCs die, then AD&D1e is a better choice than later editions.

Now, if you want them to "die" and come straight back without trouble, or never die at all, that's fine - but that's not the advice here. If you want a system where characters who die tend to stay dead, then you can either just take 1e as it is, or take a later system and fiddle with it a lot. Fiddling is tedious and reduces time better spent talking shit, rolling the dice and eating snacks.

That’s a lot of convoluted movement of goalposts to try to sidestep the fact that Raise Dead and Resurrection spells do in fact exist in your preferred edition of D&D. The fact that these are high level spells—just like every fucking edition of D&D, without exception—does not change that fact. Low level priests do not get access to these spells in any edition of the game and all the waffling about characters having to be devout followers of the priest’s god to be eligible for that service exists nowhere in the rules and, if applicable at any given table, would have to be a special campaign consideration up to the DM, which could be applied when playing ANY edition of the game.

Plus it takes ZERO fiddling around to get rid of these spells. All you have to do is say they don’t exist in your campaign. The end. It’s not like they’re intricately connected to other rules that would fall apart if you remove them.

And since Pundit’s advice is to remove these spells from the game (an automatic task that takes zero effort) rather than look for the edition of the D&D, specifically, that supposedly provides the least access to them (according to someone’s subjective opinion on the internet) we can conclude that we can easily follow this advice with any edition of any game that may have access to such magic. :P

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2020, 08:28:55 AM »
Now, just to reassure rytrasmi and Pundit, I do think actual 'raising the dead' should entail a bit more than shelling out the gold at the nearest temple.

And just to make sure we're all on the same page: this means the PC is dead. Not at 0 HP and stable, not unconscious, not petrified. Dead. As in 'check his pockets for loose change' dead.

Example from experience: during a past PF campaign, our rogue managed to eat a disintegrate spell and wound up being stored in an empty snuffbox for a while till we could finally track down someone who could cast resurrection. At one point I had suggested using planar binding to call a djinn to see what he'd ask for in exchange for wishing the rogue back to life. It took several sessions (the rogue's player, in the meantime, ran one of our henchmen/hireling NPCs).

We eventually did get him resurrected, but after that I made a point to bind earth elementals and send them spelunking for diamonds. Just in case.

Torque2100

  • Cyberpunk Catgirls FTW
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • T
  • Posts: 116
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2020, 08:43:49 AM »
Yet another problem which can be solved by not playing DnD.

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2020, 08:50:29 AM »
That’s a lot of convoluted movement of goalposts to try to sidestep the fact that Raise Dead and Resurrection spells do in fact exist in your preferred edition of D&D. The fact that these are high level spells—just like every fucking edition of D&D, without exception—does not change that fact. Low level priests do not get access to these spells in any edition of the game and all the waffling about characters having to be devout followers of the priest’s god to be eligible for that service exists nowhere in the rules and, if applicable at any given table, would have to be a special campaign consideration up to the DM, which could be applied when playing ANY edition of the game.

Plus it takes ZERO fiddling around to get rid of these spells. All you have to do is say they don’t exist in your campaign. The end. It’s not like they’re intricately connected to other rules that would fall apart if you remove them.

And since Pundit’s advice is to remove these spells from the game (an automatic task that takes zero effort) rather than look for the edition of the D&D, specifically, that supposedly provides the least access to them (according to someone’s subjective opinion on the internet) we can conclude that we can easily follow this advice with any edition of any game that may have access to such magic. :P

Agreed and seconded.

I would keep the Resurrection spells as it makes it annoying to have to re-write a new character. Without those type of spells my "new" character would be (takes character sheet in left hand puts in his back grabs it with his right hand) the same character minus any equipment or other  houseruled campaign restrictions. Other than that I also do not see where another player needs to be of the same religion of the Divine caster. If that is something a DM enforces expect everyone in the group converting as a whole to the divine caster religion.

I don't mind playing grim and gritty I would like at least the Resurrection spells.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3325
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2020, 09:20:37 AM »
Other than that I also do not see where another player needs to be of the same religion of the Divine caster. If that is something a DM enforces expect everyone in the group converting as a whole to the divine caster religion.
It could mostly make sense if the setting had properly constructed religious institutions, but it makes zero sense in the specialist henotheistic setup most D&D worlds have.

Why would a blacksmith who worships the god of smiths or a soldier who worships the god of battle be expected to convert to thd worship of the god of Sun and Agriculture just to get healing? Because default D&D treats each of those as separate religions despite each playing a vital role in maintaining civilization.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2020, 10:50:50 AM »
Other than that I also do not see where another player needs to be of the same religion of the Divine caster. If that is something a DM enforces expect everyone in the group converting as a whole to the divine caster religion.
It could mostly make sense if the setting had properly constructed religious institutions, but it makes zero sense in the specialist henotheistic setup most D&D worlds have.

Why would a blacksmith who worships the god of smiths or a soldier who worships the god of battle be expected to convert to thd worship of the god of Sun and Agriculture just to get healing? Because default D&D treats each of those as separate religions despite each playing a vital role in maintaining civilization.
Some settings have tried to weld the disparate faiths into larger pantheons (FR had the Triad, for example: Tyr, Torm, and Ilmater). I have no idea why everyone thinks benign fantasy deities can't get along any better than the old Egyptian, Norse, or Greek pantheons.

You know what would be interesting? Expand how raise dead and resurrection work in play. Here's my proposal:

Raising the dead is an arduous process, even under the best of conditions. The first step, of course, is to be able to cast the spell. Once the spell is cast, the caster goes on a 'spirit quest', similar to an astral journey or projection. He may bring along additional persons equal to his spellcasting bonus. This projection goes to only one place: the Halls of the Dead.

The Halls of the Dead are presided over by Anubis, the Guardian of the Dead. He is terrifyingly ruthless against those who would abscond or steal souls, but those who seek to legitimately restore a friend or lover to life may plead their case before him. The caster must argue the case before Anubis, using Knowledge (Religion). The presence of friends and companions can play a role: treat this as a standard DC 10 Assist Other check, using Diplomacy or Knowledge (Religion). Other options to improve a party's chances include testifying that they have slain particularly foul undead or soul-stealing creatures (no, you can't deceive Anubis on his turf. Don't even try), or alternately offering to take up a quest or task in exchange for the return of their comrade.

The DC for the check should be high but not insurmountable; Anubis is not unreasonable, and is more than happy to offer tough but fair deals to adventuring parties. Note that any such encounter with Anubis is very much at his sufferance; if the party becomes obnoxious, Anubis can immediately banish them back to the Prime Material Plane (with no saving throw) and their chances of resurrecting their comrade get MUCH slimmer.

Meanwhile, while the spell is cast, the caster and any companions with him are in a semi-comatose state. They cannot make any actions (effectively helpless) and worse, they will not sense any injury. Wise parties will arrange to only cast this spell in secure environments, preferably with guards.

A successful dispel magic, disjunction, or anti-magic field will immediately end the spell, yanking everyone back into their body. Because of this abrupt return, all participants are stunned for 1d6 rounds. This does not occur if the spell ends normally (successfully or not), or if Anubis banishes the caster and his companions from the Halls.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2020, 03:18:34 PM »
Other than that I also do not see where another player needs to be of the same religion of the Divine caster. If that is something a DM enforces expect everyone in the group converting as a whole to the divine caster religion.
It could mostly make sense if the setting had properly constructed religious institutions, but it makes zero sense in the specialist henotheistic setup most D&D worlds have.

Why would a blacksmith who worships the god of smiths or a soldier who worships the god of battle be expected to convert to thd worship of the god of Sun and Agriculture just to get healing? Because default D&D treats each of those as separate religions despite each playing a vital role in maintaining civilization.

A lot of people fail to understand how a multi god pantheon works in practice and how rare it would be for some one to worship only one god.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

RandyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 1218
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2020, 04:06:33 PM »
Other than that I also do not see where another player needs to be of the same religion of the Divine caster. If that is something a DM enforces expect everyone in the group converting as a whole to the divine caster religion.
It could mostly make sense if the setting had properly constructed religious institutions, but it makes zero sense in the specialist henotheistic setup most D&D worlds have.

Why would a blacksmith who worships the god of smiths or a soldier who worships the god of battle be expected to convert to thd worship of the god of Sun and Agriculture just to get healing? Because default D&D treats each of those as separate religions despite each playing a vital role in maintaining civilization.

A lot of people fail to understand how a multi god pantheon works in practice and how rare it would be for some one to worship only one god.

D&D polytheism is Protestant denominationalism in the context of American religious tolerance; i.e. what Gygax, et. al. saw in the communities around them in the 1960s and 1970s. Of course it is inconsistent with historic polytheistic cultures.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #40 on: December 02, 2020, 04:37:51 PM »
D&D polytheism is Protestant denominationalism in the context of American religious tolerance; i.e. what Gygax, et. al. saw in the communities around them in the 1960s and 1970s. Of course it is inconsistent with historic polytheistic cultures.

In my opinion, Greenwoods Forgotten Realms had more influence on DnD polytheism then Gygaxs Greyhawk.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

RandyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 1218
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2020, 05:29:50 PM »
D&D polytheism is Protestant denominationalism in the context of American religious tolerance; i.e. what Gygax, et. al. saw in the communities around them in the 1960s and 1970s. Of course it is inconsistent with historic polytheistic cultures.

In my opinion, Greenwoods Forgotten Realms had more influence on DnD polytheism then Gygaxs Greyhawk.

Eh, that's fair.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3325
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #42 on: December 02, 2020, 07:52:01 PM »
A lot of people fail to understand how a multi god pantheon works in practice and how rare it would be for some one to worship only one god.
The problem with most D&D pantheons is that worshipping only one god is NOT rare in the real world; over half the human population (and 70% of Americans) believes there’s only one.

Frankly, I think D&D would have produced much more sensible cosmologies/societies if they’d either stuck to the “undefined religion of light and goodness” approach I recall from the Red Box and 1e PHB or gone with basically Fantasy Catholic (i.e. the dominant faith of the Medieval period in Europe most D&D settings seek to emulate).

Or, and this might be too radical for some, if they’d just kept religion and functional magic completely separate; i.e. use the white mage concept instead of clerics. Some priests might also be white mages (or fighters or thieves for that matter), but their priestly vocation isn’t the source of the magic they wield.

And frankly, that’s kinda how just about any homebrew setting in my area worked, because I know several players who find even pretend worshiping of pagan deities problematic for their Christian faith. 4E finally allowing non-divine healing magic was one of the reasons it was actually quite popular in my area; I saw multiple warlords, many bards and even a few artificers in 4E, but no one played clerics or other divine classes in my area and religion all but sidelined beyond generic mentions of priests (Raise Dead being a ritual theoretically anyone could cast in 4E also helped in that regard. Taking the recently deceased to a “Miracle Max” type figure slides it more into “only mostly dead” territory that avoids a lot of theological issues).

The other thing that a more Christian-like religion helps with in relation to the topic at hand is that Heaven as “the next life” vs. many of the fridge horror setups the official D&D settings have* means a lot fewer people (even mighty but godly kings) would WANT to come back into this “valley of tears” prior to the Last Judgement.

Basically, only those with a specific purpose ordained by God are going to come back from true death (vs. the only mostly dead option**) in such a setting.

* who wouldn’t want to come back Eberron’s endless grey nothing of an afterlife or from being turned into furniture because your soul loses its identity in a few years and turns into raw material for your god to use at its whim?).

** I’m a huge fan of a raise dead variant that only works if cast on a subject “dead” for no more than a minute per level (so as soon as the fight that killed them is over for all practical purposes) with fluff that was basically the magic equivalent of an EMT doing CPR and an adrenaline shot to the heart to “bring someone back.” I would be perfectly okay with a setting that banned “raise dead works on weeks old corpses” but still had “raise dead works on someone who’s been down only minutes.”
« Last Edit: December 02, 2020, 07:55:57 PM by Chris24601 »

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2020, 08:51:39 PM »
A lot of people fail to understand how a multi god pantheon works in practice and how rare it would be for some one to worship only one god.
The problem with most D&D pantheons is that worshipping only one god is NOT rare in the real world; over half the human population (and 70% of Americans) believes there’s only one.

I dont track how that it is a problem with DnD Pantheons that they dont resemble real life fictional religions that never raise anyone from the dead anymore.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: One Change to Make your D&D 100% More Intense
« Reply #44 on: December 03, 2020, 07:51:54 AM »
A lot of people fail to understand how a multi god pantheon works in practice and how rare it would be for some one to worship only one god.
The problem with most D&D pantheons is that worshipping only one god is NOT rare in the real world; over half the human population (and 70% of Americans) believes there’s only one.

But it was throughout human history, and people worshiping only one god within a polytheistic religion is uncommon, outside of people who focus on one patron deity or such, which still doesn't discount the (presumed) existence of other gods or their reverence. I also have my doubts about how may people genuinely believe in one (or any) god, as opposed to just doing what they were told since they were kids without giving it much thought, considering most people I've met are only nominally Christian.

Frankly, I think D&D would have produced much more sensible cosmologies/societies if they’d either stuck to the “undefined religion of light and goodness” approach I recall from the Red Box and 1e PHB or gone with basically Fantasy Catholic (i.e. the dominant faith of the Medieval period in Europe most D&D settings seek to emulate).

That sounds pretty bland and empty, to be honest. And doesn't really lend itself to a simulated experience, where characters dwell in a life-like world where different cultures and civilizations have emerged.

Or, and this might be too radical for some, if they’d just kept religion and functional magic completely separate; i.e. use the white mage concept instead of clerics. Some priests might also be white mages (or fighters or thieves for that matter), but their priestly vocation isn’t the source of the magic they wield.

This I totally agree with and have proposed similar things before. I HATE the artificial Arcane/Divine magic split, which is almost entirely a D&D invention that bears zero resemblance to real life mystical traditions or even fiction outside of works that copied D&D's cosmology later on. And priestly roles and duties should not be tied to a specific RPG "class". That's just an occupation, and tying it to a "divinely inspired" magic using class creates unrealistic expectations of what a priest should be and how religion functions in the game world, where every "priest" is necessarily casting "miracles" all over the place, and if they can't, we "know" they're out of favor or something's "wrong" with them. Religious mystics could have magical abilities, but magic should not be intrinsically tied to religion.

And frankly, that’s kinda how just about any homebrew setting in my area worked, because I know several players who find even pretend worshiping of pagan deities problematic for their Christian faith. 4E finally allowing non-divine healing magic was one of the reasons it was actually quite popular in my area; I saw multiple warlords, many bards and even a few artificers in 4E, but no one played clerics or other divine classes in my area and religion all but sidelined beyond generic mentions of priests (Raise Dead being a ritual theoretically anyone could cast in 4E also helped in that regard. Taking the recently deceased to a “Miracle Max” type figure slides it more into “only mostly dead” territory that avoids a lot of theological issues).

The other thing that a more Christian-like religion helps with in relation to the topic at hand is that Heaven as “the next life” vs. many of the fridge horror setups the official D&D settings have* means a lot fewer people (even mighty but godly kings) would WANT to come back into this “valley of tears” prior to the Last Judgement.

Basically, only those with a specific purpose ordained by God are going to come back from true death (vs. the only mostly dead option**) in such a setting.

* who wouldn’t want to come back Eberron’s endless grey nothing of an afterlife or from being turned into furniture because your soul loses its identity in a few years and turns into raw material for your god to use at its whim?).

** I’m a huge fan of a raise dead variant that only works if cast on a subject “dead” for no more than a minute per level (so as soon as the fight that killed them is over for all practical purposes) with fluff that was basically the magic equivalent of an EMT doing CPR and an adrenaline shot to the heart to “bring someone back.” I would be perfectly okay with a setting that banned “raise dead works on weeks old corpses” but still had “raise dead works on someone who’s been down only minutes.”

This reflects more your personal/religious prejudices and hang-ups more than a universal attitude or the way that the game should be presented or played. I have zero problem accepting that my fictional character could have different believes and values than me, and I don't pretend to worship my character's gods*, but simply role-play my character as worshiping those gods, which I personally might not believe in (there's a difference). But then again I'm not a Christian nor subscribe to Abrahamic prejudices, so I have no problem with different religions existing, specially make-believe ones.

*unless they worship Odin, or some other real life pagan god, then I totally pretend (j/k) :P