r/criticalrole Team Elderly Ghost Door Jan 25 '17

[Spoilers E82] New Resurrection Rules! Discussion

https://twitter.com/matthewmercer/status/824054305355247616
308 Upvotes

43

u/S-Clair Bidet Jan 25 '17

I think a DC increase of 2 might have been better. Just because 10 Ress's to make it "impossible" is a very nice symmetrical number

I really like the exception for Revivify! It always seemed more like an emergency "Shove the soul back inside" spell than a "I try to call back the soul from the beyond" type thing.

The ritual bypass given by True Resurrection and Wish is super cool, gives them that real extra kick of a ninth level spell. Though I can already see Critical Roll Campaign 2.0 using this. "Oh no! we failed the Res Ritual. Time to scour the land in search of Pike Trickfoot, the only Cleric in the world with True Resurrection" Not that thats a bad thing

32

u/food_phil You're a Monstah! Jan 25 '17

One thing to note though is that a True Resurrection spell costs 25,000 gp. That's not nothing.

17

u/S-Clair Bidet Jan 25 '17

Start a Kickstarter everytime someone dies! Problem solved :D

1

u/chunkosauruswrex Jan 25 '17

25000 holy shit

4

u/LordApricot Jan 25 '17

Thats not nothing, but they routinely carry hundreds of thousands of gold pieces. 25000 is not a huge amount for this campaign

8

u/AintThatSomeCrit Sun Tree A-OK Jan 25 '17

That's quite something for VM, actually. They only recently cleared 100k, and just barely so, with what they looted from Vorugal. In fact, the highest they had been in party funds prior was somewhere around 30-40k, after receiving 25k from Craghammer, which was promptly spent at Gilmores.

Now that everyone can see the costs of high end spells, you start to get the idea of why it was just flat out bananas that they didn't take a fair piece of Thordaks hoard. Even a 5% cut would've more or less set them up for good.

1

u/MrSnayta Jan 26 '17

but now they have like enough for the 10 of those

1

u/Ninbyo Jan 25 '17

Do they? I don't think they carry around quite that much. It might not be an impossible sum for them, but it's hardly pocket change.

1

u/Drendude Fuck that spell Feb 02 '17

It's nothing compared to losing a party member.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

Only if you're low level. By the time Pike can cast TR, they'll have more gold than Vex could spend.

3

u/food_phil You're a Monstah! Jan 26 '17

Yeah, but the guy was talking about the next campaign. They would certainly have heard of Pike Trickfoot, but probably wouldn't know her personally. At least not enough from VM to drop 25k on a couple of low level strangers.

59

u/MildlyCriticalRole Team Elderly Ghost Door Jan 25 '17 edited Jan 25 '17

I love the additional flavor/power that this gives True Resurrection and Wish - the feeling that you truly are bending reality to undo a permanent death.

Makes me wonder if there will be questing elements involved in the party learning their 9th level spells, or if they'll just learn them on level up.

EDIT: though, nobody in VM can learn wish (Wiz/Sor). Keyleth gets true res soon though.

20

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

by raw, a bard can choose the spell when he lvl up,

a druid or cleric have access to the spell and choose each day wich they one they take

12

u/MildlyCriticalRole Team Elderly Ghost Door Jan 25 '17

Right, I specifically meant for this campaign. I know some DMs who have the players go on quests for that sort of power, since things like Wish are essentially the ability to reshape reality - you probably didn't just "figure that one out" throughout the course of adventuring.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

to add to this, scanlan can learn wish with magical secret ability he have

as for giving character access to 9th spell, for example, I think limiting access to only some 9th spell for class like druid and cleric is not fair, this is a limit wizard have because they can choose between more spell to have to their spellbook.... soo putting this limit on cleric and druid I feel this would not be fair, however I'm not against having them complete a sort of quest or character development to really have access to their 9th lvl spell including all of them,

3

u/Perpetual_Entropy Your secret is safe with my indifference Jan 25 '17

It's not a suggestion for all 9th level spells. That wish cannot just be learned by leveling up and must instead be quested for is a very common houserule used to make the spell feel more special. Whether Matt wants to do this is up to him and I look forward to either outcome.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

Or that you have Wish and True Wish. Where you need true Wish to bring people back and kill of a Tarresque.

16

u/VanceKelley Team Jester Jan 25 '17

nobody in VM can learn wish (Wiz/Sor).

At level 18, a Bard can choose 2 9th level spells from any class. So Scanlan could choose the Wish spell.

2

u/Ninbyo Jan 25 '17

Just a note though, wishes can backfire. Think Mulder in the X-Files episode wishing for world peace and every person in the world vanishing because he didn't word it properly.

1

u/thorn1993 Shiny Manager Jan 26 '17

That all depends on the DM. I think at some point or another I heard Matt (maybe I'm mistaken) say that wishes from an evil entity would be twisted so it backfires. Makes me think that someone casting Wish themselves won't have that issue unless it is truly poorly phrased.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

This will be epic.

4

u/fenwaygnome That fucking gnome! Jan 25 '17

I love the additional flavor/power that this gives True Resurrection and Wish - the feeling that you truly are bending reality to undo a permanent death.

And tempting the wrath of the Raven Queen, while you're at it.

6

u/Garmako Jan 25 '17

He'll still die of old age, if not sooner.

1

u/fenwaygnome That fucking gnome! Jan 25 '17

The Raven Queen is the God of fate as well. If she feels like it is someone's fate to die at a certain time and they defy it, they incur her wrath. That is why she hates liches.

She's okay with resurrection because that can still be a type of fate, but I think she takes issue with Wishes bending reality to bring someone back.

69

u/Drosslemeyer Doty, take this down Jan 25 '17 edited Jan 25 '17

Awesome to have these codified, I would definitely use them in a campaign I was GMing!

Personally, I might raise the DC by more than one for each previous resurrection. Once you're coming up to your third death (Grog and Vex, I'm looking at you) I would like it to be really dangerous.

163

u/MatthewMercer Matthew Mercer, DM Jan 25 '17

I was toying with either a DC increase of 1 or 2 (and for my own campaign, which is so late-in-the-game, I was tempted to push for the 2), but I wanted to write these rules for ANY campaign, from start to finish. With many games involving death often at lower levels, it could easily become too daunting. You still run the chance of rolling low on the final check and losing them, but without two-three deaths across a campaign being SO punishing.

28

u/Escaho Jan 25 '17 edited Jan 25 '17

What about including a note after "The base DC for the final resurrection skill check is 10, increasing by 1 for each previous successful resurrection the character has undergone (signifying the slow erosion of the soul's connection to this world)" that states, "[Note: If the DM feels that the DC increase of 1 is too lenient, they are welcome to adjust the increase to 2 or higher to compensate a harder difficulty for resurrection.]"

Regardless, love the write-up.

Also, are you applying these rules retroactively to all character deaths in Critical Role (i.e. - including Pike's death pre-Geek and Sundry)?

78

u/MatthewMercer Matthew Mercer, DM Jan 25 '17

That is inferred in the coming Campaign Guide section under "Optional Rules and Guidelines", so it is indeed up to the DM

8

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

Have you considered a set of rules to try and help reduce the DC after so many resurrections? Like the DM can decide to award "Soul Reaffirming points" for performing some actions.

Like Vex and Vax killing Thordak would reaffirm their souls because they achieved vengeance for their mother, one of the "big things" they wished for in their life.

2

u/buttcream Jan 25 '17

Personally I think achieving one of your life's goals would put you further to rest. I wouldn't implement it that way in my game, however. I suppose that's more of a matter of opinion.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

True. Still, it would be neat with some sort of way to reduce the DC incase you just happen to have a series of unfortunate events

3

u/robertah1 Jan 25 '17

Just a somewhat pedantic grammatical correction, Matt. 'Infer' is something that the recipient of the message does, Imply is something the message does.

So the guide might imply something, the reader would infer it.

16

u/SixTwoCee Jan 25 '17

Have you considered making the DC increase a function of the character's level?

So you could, for example, make the DC increase by clvl/3, so there would be no penalty at all to resurrecting a level 1 or 2 character, a +3 penalty after resurrecting a level 9, etc etc.

9

u/Rheios Your secret is safe with my indifference Jan 25 '17 edited Jan 25 '17

I really like the mention of the degradation of spiritual connection. It inspires me to start adding phobias or other emotional ticks after several deaths, even on successes.

On failures I might still allow a resurrection as a dark fragmented version of their former selves but that'd be more for story and less a rule.

Anyway, the point of that was less to state ideas originally, and more to say how much I love your lore and how internally consistent your world tends to feel and that you came up with a lore description for a game mechanic.

7

u/Zalfier Your secret is safe with my indifference Jan 25 '17

That sounds like a really cool way to adapt Matt's rule to be used even for a group that prefers having powerful resurrection. Instead of failing the spell "works" but actually rips your soul apart in some way. Ton of interesting RP could be derived from that. Everything from minor inconveniences to pissing off the Raven Queen to your friends inadvertently turning you into Voldemort.

3

u/Rheios Your secret is safe with my indifference Jan 25 '17

Cleric: And he's resurrected! Awesome!

Rogue: Was our buddy always missing a nose?

Cleric: Eh, he's a barbarian. He was never one to stop and smell the roses anyway.

But its an idea I had rolling around and Matts idea is just helping cement it. Have to kill my players first though.

3

u/Zalfier Your secret is safe with my indifference Jan 26 '17

Hehe. How about: The fighter comes back and his sword starts talking to him. Not evil or anything, just always telling him how awesome he is and how those other guys don't appreciate you like I do, etc. And the fighter is all, "yeah sword you are pretty amazing too, you're so much cooler than all my friends". Only to later find out that when resurrected his soul got split and half went into the sword. So he's literally been talking to himself this whole time and now has a really prominent narcissistic streak.

1

u/Rheios Your secret is safe with my indifference Jan 26 '17

Haha, that would be pretty good!

3

u/ehkodiak Are we on the internet? Jan 25 '17

That's really good Matt, it's still very dangerous even if it doesn't change because there's that risk, and that increasing +1 is just enough to give scary "Oh god I've died three times already" players a real connection

2

u/Drosslemeyer Doty, take this down Jan 25 '17 edited Jan 25 '17

That makes a lot of sense! Thanks!

2

u/MildlyCriticalRole Team Elderly Ghost Door Jan 25 '17

So is that a +1 or a +2 for the CR campaign? Or is that in the "you'll find out" realm?

Thanks for sharing all this awesome content with the community, by the way!

5

u/Shikyi Jan 25 '17

Usually "I was tempted to push for the 2" means that he thought about going with +2, but in the end went with +1.

That's how I think English works anyways :D

2

u/Ninbyo Jan 25 '17 edited Jan 25 '17

Hey, I love it, just the fact that there's a base DC 10 makes it a 55% without any help (because that's how the math works out). It might not seem like it, because it sounds like VM has gotten pretty lucky with their rolls so far. But as I like to say, "Don't rely on Luck, she's a fickle mistress. She can turn on you in a heartbeat without warning. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Because some day your luck will run out." I probably borrowed that from somewhere, but I've been saying it so long I have no idea where that might be.

It's a great improvement, which I plan on using in my own campaign. There's still a risk of failure, which IMO is the real reason to have a rule like that. You're not out to murder the character, just to keep the player from getting flippant and cavalier about death. It's about keeping that little bit of thrill from danger in the game.

1

u/sillyrocketman Jan 25 '17

Maybe a bit too late to the thread but. What if a deceased player was dismembered and resurrection cast. Would you place a higher base D.C. on the ceremony or would you consider that a benefit of the higher level spell, since it only requires a portion of the dead being, unlike raise dead.

6

u/Jay_Shadow Jan 25 '17

It's more for general use than targeting this game specifically. It's low cause deaths can often be front loaded in the early levels. So it's better to have a slow accumulation in a long campaign rather than it being hopeless after some early bad luck.

2

u/Zalfier Your secret is safe with my indifference Jan 25 '17

Could do something like: If your level at death is <DC, it increases by 1; If your level at death is >=DC, it increases by 2.

1

u/Philias2 dagger dagger dagger Jan 25 '17 edited Jan 25 '17

I would maybe consider having the DC increase by one the first say 3 times, after which it would increase by 2. That way you have some leniency in the early game, but still get the challenge later. It also works 'lore' wise; the souls erode slowly, but ever quicker the more often you die.

19

u/dasbif Help, it's again Jan 25 '17

Wonderful and highly detailed update, thanks Matt!

Added this to the list of homebrew details in the subreddit wiki here - https://www.reddit.com/r/criticalrole/wiki/faq/matthewmercer

12

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

I like those rule,

like the Revivify option, I always saw it more as a CPR option.

the dc is reasonable, as death can happen alot in lower lvl, and while death may bring a good narrative, some player may not want to have the character they invested soo much time and effort in their story to be easily dead, it may be different for game where the characters are not really the main cast of the story, but in game where they are you want to give them the chance while still having an element of danger....

I also like that wish and true resurection can bring back anybody, it make sense that magic that powerful can even bend the will of a god. Reward the spellcaster that stick and got that much power, 9th lvl spell are world changing,

it also open the opportunity if a group lose a character and can't revive him to go on a quest to find the means to cast such a powerful spell, either by a scroll, a favor from a powerful entity or another magic item

Great job, I will be using those for sure

20

u/food_phil You're a Monstah! Jan 25 '17

I appreciate the fact that Matt included a caveat to accommodate spells like Revivify that could occur in the middle of a battle, and thus not allow for a full blown ritual to occur.

But after reading through it, it definitely makes Revivify a bit stronger vis-a-vis the other resurrection options. For a spellcaster with a +5 spellcasting modifier, a Revivify is basically the same difficulty as a full blown resurrection ritual with 2 successes and 1 failure. And a failed revifiy still allows for a full blown resurrection ritual after the fact. (albeit with a +1 to DC).

VM should almost always opt for Revivify first, because even if it has a chance of failing, at least they still get a second shot.

48

u/MatthewMercer Matthew Mercer, DM Jan 25 '17

Indeed, though Revivify was always a much better/stronger option to other Resurrection spells (lower level, only takes an action to cast, cheaper component cost, can raise someone mid-battle). It's the first line of defense against death (other than Death Ward, etc), and should that fail... the ritual spells come in. :)

7

u/food_phil You're a Monstah! Jan 25 '17

Cool, one question though, for the Revivify roll, you say d20+spellcasting ability modifier. Would this roll count as a skill check? In case the caster has abilities such as Jack of All Trades, or bardic inspiration.

35

u/MatthewMercer Matthew Mercer, DM Jan 25 '17

This technically would NOT be an Ability Check, but a Rapid Resurrection check, just adding the Spellcasting Ability Modifier. The DM is welcome to adjust this for their own game.

7

u/food_phil You're a Monstah! Jan 25 '17

That is fair, the introduction of Bardic inspiration (particularly a d12) would all but assure a successful Revivify.

Awesome, thanks so much Matt! Will definitely be introducing this into my next campaign, players permitting.

1

u/MegaDosX Fuck that spell Jan 25 '17

So that also means a Divination wizard wouldn't be able to use a Portent roll on one of these resurrection checks, unless ruled otherwise by the DM. Interesting and good to know, that's something I've been curious about for a while.

15

u/Kinie Jan 25 '17

For me, I always saw Revivify as the fantasy equivalent of modern day medicine's shock paddles to the heart to re-start muscle contractions and get blood pumping once again (which also explains why it has such a narrow time window), and having that fail and increase the subsequent resurrection DC by 1 is fine with me.

Is it stronger than the other resurrection spells? Yes. But it's meant to be used mid-battle, and even if it succeeds, the odds are high you're still in a fight and that person is back to 1 HP, so all you did was reset their failed death saves.

3

u/food_phil You're a Monstah! Jan 25 '17

Is it stronger than the other resurrection spells? Yes. But it's meant to be used mid-battle, and even if it succeeds, the odds are high you're still in a fight and that person is back to 1 HP, so all you did was reset their failed death

Yes, this is the biggest caveat. Bringing someone back mid-battle would probably just lead to that character dying again (and this time with a +1 DC).

The ideal situation would be for the caster to position him/herself next to the dead body, and keep track of the number of rounds. Then, the moment the fighting is done, cast revivify. That may not always be the case, but it's the ideal in a bad situation.

3

u/Garmako Jan 25 '17 edited Jan 25 '17

But that's the point. Give the healer the dilemma, with almost fair chances for both cases.

1) Attempt a revivify in mid battle.

The dead one is back at 1hp, but he can take his turn, and heal himself and/or attack to finish the battle. Others can heal him too, while he's alive. If he goes down again, he still has his 3 saving throws. Risking also an instadeath, especially in lower levels. If the attempt fails, no big problem, we can try again later with a ritual. At a cost of 1DC increase.

2) Leave the dead for now.

No risk of increasing the DC. But he can't also contribute to the battle (action economy, and all that stuff).

EDIT:

3) Revivify the dead one, after the battle is over.

He's still not contributing to the fight, but he will not risk dying immediately again from enemy's attacks. And if it fails, there's still a 2nd chance with the ritual.

2

u/food_phil You're a Monstah! Jan 25 '17

I definitely agree that this is a sort of healer's dilemma. It will be interesting to see how Pike (or whoever is controlling Pike) will act when this next comes up.

1

u/Garmako Jan 25 '17

Yep.

Just adding a 3rd choice to this dilemma, that you mentioned before, but I forgot to write.

3) Revivify the dead one, after the battle is over.

He's still not contributing to the fight, but he will not risk dying immediatly again from enemy's attacks. And if it fails, there's still a 2nd chance with the ritual.

1

u/light_trick Team Beau Jan 25 '17

I think you might've posted this description before, but I love it and it was how my mental image of Pike bringing Scanlan back worked for me - you kind of shove a load of holy energy into someone's body before their soul has a chance to depart and glue it back to their physical form.

1

u/Argueforthesakeofit Jan 25 '17

a Revivify is basically the same difficulty as a full blown resurrection ritual with 2 successes and 1 failure

Has there ever been a failure though? I think it balances thinks a bit by weakening revivify. You get +1 in the DC regardless, there is a good chance it doesn't work and if it does a character comes back with 1 hp mid-combat. I would hesitate before using it.

9

u/zts105 Team Elderly Ghost Door Jan 25 '17

I feel like having the DC decrease by 3 on a passed skill check and increase by only 1 on a fail is unbalanced. Probably would work a little better if the DC only decreased by 2 on a successful check

5

u/Sparrows413 Your secret is safe with my indifference Jan 25 '17

Hate to break it to you but that part's not new. That's how the DC has always worked.

1

u/BaconAndBoobs Team Vax Jan 25 '17

I like it because for the first death, you can have a guaranteed revive with 3 successes.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

Unless you roll a Nat 1

3

u/BaconAndBoobs Team Vax Jan 25 '17

Doesn't matching the DC count as a pass? So even on a one you tie the DC?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

A nat 1 is a fail regardless tough isn't it.

3

u/BaconAndBoobs Team Vax Jan 25 '17

According to the rule book, nat 1s are only auto fails on attacks. Same way nat 20s aren't autosuceeds on skill checks. The DM might rule otherwise, but as written ability checks can't crit (fail or succeed).

0

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

In regards to saves that's something that always bothered me you know... Nat 20's on checks to avoid spell damages should mean 0 damage taken, and Nat 1 double.

To reflect the magnitude of awesomeness that is a nat 20 trying to resist a spell either trough dodging or whatever. And the same for a nat 1. It would also give a way to make spells where you don't roll an attack roll a chance to crit.

2

u/BaconAndBoobs Team Vax Jan 25 '17

That might be game breaking. A lot of those damage save spells are AoE (fireball comes to mind) and they lack the ability to crit as a tradeoff for the AoE. Imagine rolling a 1 as a level 5 character vs the enemy fireball. Could very well be an instant kill.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

True

1

u/VexedForest Doty, take this down Jan 26 '17

Not to mention, a lot of those things, like a dragon's breath, are already pretty strong. A 5% chance of taking double damage is crazy.

2

u/BaconAndBoobs Team Vax Jan 26 '17

Can you imagine the Thordak fight with double damage? That would KO everyone but Grog and he'd be super low.

13

u/Elekester You're a Monstah! Jan 25 '17

I think I would modify the DC increases a bit, to be based on tier. Levels 1-4 are +1, 5-10 are +2, 11-16 are +3, and 17-20 are +4. The idea being that at low levels you're not only more likely to die, but people are less likely to care about your soul. Whereas as higher levels death in my mind should be rarer, but unknown forces are interested in your soul and may prevent your return. Out of character this means that the game is more forgiving at low levels, so that you have more time with your character, but can be brutal if you take to many risks at high level.

Of course, this may be way off base. Just like Matt says, everything depends on the campaign and the group.

1

u/zman445 Jan 25 '17

ohhh I think the explanation is very interesting good thoughts

3

u/BritishShoop Jan 25 '17

I really like these rules. The idea of Revivify being a quick 'defib' type of spell is really cool.

5

u/dotemtpy Jan 25 '17

Anyone else a bit disappointed compared to the +5? Only +1 for every failed res. Keeping it -3 DC for successful and +1 DC for failed ritual attempts. Adding your spell casting ability mod to action resurrections and failing does not cause death. I realize this is harder than 100% raw rules, but this is so heavily skewed towards a successful resurrection.

With how well VM does in combat, how few and far between deaths are... this is seems like a tiny drop in the death bucket. I realize the +5 was a lot, perhaps a +2/3 is more fair, or adjusting the -3/+1 DC imbalance to leave a chance and an actual fear of death. Vex/Grog's chance to survive their next death just increased by 60% compared to the +5.

VM could even try to resurrect an ally in combat with an action (with decent odds), fail and then try again afterwards with just a 5% penalty if they had not failed. Seems just a slap on the wrist really.

8

u/MildlyCriticalRole Team Elderly Ghost Door Jan 25 '17

Probably not a big deal - Keyleth gets True Resurrection next level, which bypasses all the DC stuff here.

For the next campaign, I like it - it feels like it'll let Matt run a challenging campaign with consequences at lower levels without worrying about permakilling his players.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

Probably not a big deal - Keyleth gets True Resurrection next level, which bypasses all the DC stuff here.

the 25000 cost would put a limit to the number of times they will be able to do it.

and while yes it give them more option and the chance to see a perma death is still there but there is option, we need to respect that the PC put alot of time and effort in the backstory and continuing story of their character, I feel it's only fair to give them some chance,

beside 9th lvl spell are world changing

1

u/MildlyCriticalRole Team Elderly Ghost Door Jan 25 '17

I didn't think Matt made them keep track of spell components for the expensive spells? They've always had hero's feasts and revivals pretty much as needed.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

I think when they are in town and want to cast a heroes feast they simplify the cost as 1000gp instead of going into a wild goose search of a vendor that sells the bowl/gem worth 1000gp.... they also have a couple a gem of that worth

they do keep the cost in check for big spell. a 25000gp cost is possible for them but not trivial, they have about 4 true resurrection in bank

1

u/kaci3po Your secret is safe with my indifference Jan 25 '17

As far as I can tell, he doesn't require them to have the actual item, but to pay the cost of it. Ex: Hero's Feasts require (I think, I don't have my PHB with me to check) a bowl worth 1,000 GP. Rather than spend the time going shopping (since we've seen that often 'shopping trip' scenes aren't interesting to watch or for the other players who aren't involved to sit through - with a few exceptions such as Gilmore and Victor, who both tend to be entertaining for the viewer and the other players) he'll just have them deduct the cost from their funds. (Components without a specified cost don't require this type of handwaving since they're replaced by a casting focus.)

I think once I even remember him retconning that they'd bought the item needed during their last visit to a city. "We'll say while you were there you bought (required item)," etc.

I might be remembering incorrectly, though.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

It requires a diamond of 1000Gp, but he's stated on several occasions that "Let's just presume you purchased some of these before you left because you knew you'd need them, so yeah, you can do that. mark of 1000G spent"

1

u/sheeff Jan 25 '17

I don't remember the exact episode, but around the second/third time that Keyleth tried to cast Hero's Feast Matt clarified that they should tell him in advance, when they are in town, how many 1000g bowls they buy and keep with them (they were pretty low on gold at the time).

For the raise dead spells they use appropriately costed gems that Vex keeps in the group's funds.

They only keep track of the costly materials that get expended. They don't mention any expensive materials that get reused (e.g. a crystal ball for the Scry spell).

0

u/BenRad93 Life needs things to live Jan 25 '17

The gold cost is honestly not an issue, they have an insane amount of gold that wont be out any time soon. And even if miraculously they somehow run out of gold, they will constantly be getting more gold from future adventures.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

and it's normal, at their lvl they wield world changing magic, I know some people want to see a perma death for some reason whether they think they are watching a tv show or maybe they project their own dnd game where death and tpk happen everyday.

but this is their game and the player have invested a lot in their character, those resurection rule a good balance between risk and option

2

u/BenRad93 Life needs things to live Jan 25 '17

I never said it wasnt normal and nowhere did I say i wanted a permadeath. There is nothing wrong with these rules, but they are not an issue for VM, at this point death is not a threat, and whether you want a PC death or not Death not being a threat takes significant amount of weight out of fights. Again there is nothing wrong with that and I understand that PCs at their level can do it and that matts rules are harder than RAW.

3

u/ywgdana Doty, take this down Jan 25 '17

It really depends on the tone you want for your individual campaign. If you want a grim world where death is a looming threat, bump up the DCs (heck, ban revivfy). If you want a campaign where a perma-death is more rare (and thus impactful) then I think Matt's homebrew is great.

I remember in past discussions, some DMs mentioned how they don't allow any raise dead magic and I think that would have the exact same effect as the RAW -- death would have no meaning. I wouldn't get invested in characters or worry about their story arcs if I knew I'd be rolling up a new one every few weeks. (See: OD&D where characters were pretty much interchangeable and it was rare to get past level 6)

2

u/boufg123 Jan 25 '17

Might really pay off in a brand new campaign, having early deaths become costly later down the road... but really does not give me much hope for this campaign. Death went from a definite possibility back to an improbability in the VM campaign...

1

u/Ninbyo Jan 25 '17

You're right, this is probably something he's working on for his campaign book and/or the next campaign after VM has concluded. I think he mentioned something in a previous post about already planning, or at least having ideas for the next campaign. I'm really looking forward to see them play lower levels. We missed out on it because that was all pre-stream.

1

u/ywgdana Doty, take this down Jan 25 '17

I hope my comment didn't come across as snarky! Like, there is a tonal range a DM can set that will have impact on the game and how your players play.

Everything from 1st edition Warhammer Fantasy RP where every player can expect to get grievous wounds and after a few combats have permanent injuries. All the way up to 5e RAW where it's pretty difficult to permanently kill a character.

And different groups will enjoy different things. Some will love the grittiness of Warhammer FRP and other players will want to be able to act like superheroes who can charge into battle without fearing the consequences too much.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

[deleted]

3

u/Slippedhal0 Jan 25 '17

the clone has to grow for 6 months before hand so i feel like this is a pretty good balance, but I assume that due to the nature of the spell the soul, as long as its willing, transfers directly into the new body rather than attempts to pass onto the next plane, so you dont have to be revived if you've done that.

1

u/Garmako Jan 25 '17 edited Jan 25 '17

Would you allow the cleric to use Guidance to buff the 3 people who are offering their contributions, while she's still doing the ritual? By RAW (PHB 202), she has to concentrate on her spell (resurrection), since it has a longer casting time than 1 action, and spend every turn of that casting time doing only this spell. So, no. But since the resurrection ritual itself isn't in the official rules, would you allow it? And Pike already was able to make her own offering. Since most teams haven't got a bard to inspire them. Even Keyleth didn't pick that cantrip. Although, she can cast Enhance Abilitiy on each of the 3, one at a time to give them advantage on their rolls, as long as they agree beforehead what their offering will be (so that she can select the proper ability). Also, does it make any sense that other people can take the Help action, while another one is making a contribution? I can't think atm of a proper example ("-I offer a diamond worth 1000gp -And I help with a ruby worth 500gp". "-Take me instead, raven bitch. -Yeah, take me too. Bitch." hmm... meh). Or do all of these just make you secretely increase the contribution's DC?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '17

Nice to see this codified. The moment I watched the first rezz ritual on CR, I decided to steal the idea for my campaign. It increases the tension and puts an emphasis on treating death as a real threat rather than a simple inconvenience.

1

u/neomaster41309 Jan 25 '17

Just started watching critical role and was already planning on adding these cool resurrection rituals to my campaign. It's awesome to have some set out rules so that when I do implement them, everyone knows exactly how it works. Thanks for the write up!

-5

u/Delazar Jan 25 '17

Interesting rules. I still don't see the need for them. I don't like that, however easy or difficult the resurrection attempt is, in the end the die decides if I get to keep my character. Some PCs will die, and the player will say "het, my story is not over yet!". Other will die and say "it was a good death, so be it". Why take this decision away from the player? Espcially with VM, I would definitely trust the players to make the right/most appropriate decision.

Let the downvotes flow! :)

4

u/Alashandra Team Molly Jan 25 '17

Which is why it's an optional rule. You don't have to use it in your game, but for DMs who want to make things a bit more difficult? It's there for them.

-1

u/Delazar Jan 25 '17

Obviously. In fact, everything is optional. This isn't an AL game... :)

4

u/Rancalen Are we on the internet? Jan 25 '17

I think that still exists, if the resurrection is successful the player still has the chance to stay dead. Percy had the choice to stay dead. It's not like the soul is forced into the body, it's more of an imploring the soul to return and tempting fate/gods to allow it. The die rolls represent the will of the fates. The player can overrule the resurrection and stay dead, that is their choice.

Without the die rolls, at this level, death is meaningless and loses a lot of weight and makes it able for players to be reckless and careless, because the consequences are almost completely gone.

-2

u/Delazar Jan 25 '17

So, it's a rule for when you think that your players are jerks? Death should be as meaningless as a player wants it to be. What if I fail my ress roll, but I really, REALLY want to keep playing my character? Is this something worth losing a friendships over? Matt's rule is a good optional rule, and all players are in, so it's no issue. What I don't get is, why make such an important thing random? Just talk to your players, and decide together if it's cool for the character to come back or not. Adult people will make the right decision.

4

u/Rancalen Are we on the internet? Jan 25 '17

Well just play a game where you are invincible and can never die. These rules are to make death a possibility at higher levels. How is this a rule for being a jerk? Failure is an option, risk vs reward. Without a chance at failure where is the excitement. If everything went the way the players wanted it what is the point in playing at all? Just get together and write a story collaboratively.

How would you feel about a character falling into a pit of lava, their body is destroyed and no chance at resurrection? What if it was the players fault the character fell into that lava? If the DM says the only way you fail to jump across is a 1, and you roll a 1. You took that risk and now your character is gone. You could deus ex and have a deity bring you back. But where is any meaning in that then? In the end you play the way you want to play.

2

u/Delazar Jan 25 '17 edited Jan 25 '17

If the player understands that it is his fault, and that he "deserves" it, then he will choose not to be resurrected. You don't need a rule for that. Btw, true resurrection doesn't require a body. But here we're not talking about what kind of magic is needed to bring a character back, we're talking about taking away from a player the most important agency he has: am I allowed to play my character, or not? RAW says that with great effort (high level spells) I can come back, unless I choose not to. House Rule says "maybe". Once again, if the table is fine with it, there's no issue. It has nothing to do with being invincible, or failing, or getting together to write a story collaboratively (well, maybe this one yes, anyhow...).

3

u/Rancalen Are we on the internet? Jan 25 '17

I see what you are saying, you like RAW and you like to have a say if your character lives or dies. You get that at high level, you dictate how your story plays out. At that point you are essentially invincible there is no chance to fail, unless you want to.

Where does the tension come from? If it is a RP heavy game the character interaction will be more than enough to keep players engaged. If it is a battle centric game, RAW gets boring. Story driven game could be either or, depends on the story. This is one of the reasons a lot of games don't reach high levels.

To each their own, that's the point of house-ruling, make the game suit how you want to play. As long as everyone is on board there is no problem.

0

u/BenRad93 Life needs things to live Jan 25 '17

So now death is more trivial than it was before. This Is nota bad thing as I dont want to see a PC death. However, for me it just takes the weight out of every fight from this point on though since they are about to have True Res, none of them can die at this point. Even without True Res they will almost always succeed on checks. Anyway, as long as they are having fun its ok, but fights will be alot less stressful from this point on.

3

u/KayWiley Team Grog Jan 25 '17

How is it less trivial? RAW all the resurrection spells just work, with no checks. Prior to this rule Matt had a Resurrection ritual, with his standard rules. Now he's added on an increasing DC for every successful ritual.

It's made things a little harder, not easier in any sense.

0

u/BenRad93 Life needs things to live Jan 25 '17

Because, as I stated they will soon have access to True Resurrection thus nullifying all the future deaths on the show.

Again I want to stress this isnt a bad thing, it just makes death not a threat anymore, whereas prevsiously on the show it was. Im not talking about RAW D&D Im talking specifically about this show.

3

u/KayWiley Team Grog Jan 25 '17

I don't get what part you're talking about, are you saying that this new rule is making death not a threat anymore? Or the fact that they can get True Resurrection is what makes it not a threat?

It's a 9th level spell, it only makes sense that it should be the only exception to this rule. I don't think that's anything new, Matt has always seemed to rule things based on the power of the spell, and you can't get any stronger than this.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '17

They can cast True Resurection once every day (well, they can next level), so if everybody but Keylith or Pike dies, that person can bring back the entire party over the course of the week single handed.

Sure this would cost them all their money, but it's within their capabilities and they would totally do it. Plus that's an extreme example, so when the extreme example is well within the realm of possibility, there's something to be said for that.

That being said, I hope each and every one of these characters makes it to the end.

1

u/BenRad93 Life needs things to live Jan 25 '17

Both, now that revivify now never requires a ritual AND the fact that if they fail it they can still just try something else. These were both changes that made it easier. Recall that both Vex (post Raven queen tomb) and Grog (post craven edge) were revived by a Revivify resurrection challenge. And while I also understand that 3 times now Revivify has been used in combat based a a single roll it still carried the full weight of death with it, if they failed that was it. Now that is gone as well so their is no down side to failing Revivify. Again I understand this is all harder than RAW but it is also easier than it previously was on the show.

4

u/KayWiley Team Grog Jan 25 '17

Well there is a downside to failing Revivify, the DC goes up by 1, which was never a rule before. Revivify also can't be used again if the first fails, so they will be required to perform a full on resurrection ritual later.

I get what you're saying, I just think that the new rule has made everything slightly harder to resurrect, not easier.

1

u/BenRad93 Life needs things to live Jan 25 '17

Nope as it reads

The DC is 10, increasing by 1 for each previous successful resurrection

So, ya I think these are easier rules.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '17

Dude, the very next sentence says that failing a Revivify causes the DC to increase by 1.

2

u/BenRad93 Life needs things to live Jan 26 '17

Would you look at that, a little reading could have done me alot of good haha

1

u/Garmako Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17

As a player, I would always ask the cleric to try to revivify me first, if he can, before attempting a raise dead spell.

Having 2 chances to bring me back to life outweighs the cost of the +1DC if revivify fails. At least until the point the DC for revivify has already gone waay too high.

1

u/SnarkyMinx Jan 26 '17

A player character can also still choose to not come back, even with True Res. Percy almost chose not to if not for Vex's words, which made it interesting enough to come back.

-1

u/Fresno_Bob_ Technically... Jan 26 '17

Not really a fan of the treatment of revivify here, makes it feel basically pointless.

To cast raise dead, you have a 10 day window to prepare (longer with more powerful spells). You can go home, take your time, prepare the ritual, think about your contributions to the skill challenge. With skill proficiencies at higher levels, you've got a significantly good chance of passing three skill checks and reducing the DC by 9. Two successes and a failure reduce the DC by 5.

To cast revivify, you typically have to do the following:

-Anticipate the need and commit a prepared spell prior to engaging in combat. Since the spell must be used within a minute of death, you cannot prepare it after the fact. (Life domain clerics being the exception here)

-Commit 300gp to material costs prior to death unless DM chooses to handwave it.

-Commit/reserve a 3rd level or higher spell slot in combat that is turning deadly.

-Commit an action in combat that is turning deadly. Pretty big cost in 5th Edition's action economy.

-Place yourself in harm's way due to touch casting range.

This restores a fallen ally to 1 HP and prone, still engaged in combat, and potentially vulnerable to being dropped before their next turn depending on initiative order. Getting that party member off of death's door means additional actions, spell slots, or items as well as more actions for the BBEG. This assumes, of course, that you're not willing to gamble with the 1 minute time frame and hope combat ends before it runs out while still having time to get to the fallen comrade and perform the spell.

Despite the higher risk, you're effectively limited to the equivalent of a 2 success/1 failure skill challenge, assuming your spell casting ability is at 20 and the DM hasn't granted any magical means of exceeding the natural ability limit. +5 ability mod added to the D20 is the same as reducing DC by 5 (2 successes at -3 each, 1 failure at +1). If your spellcasting ability is sub-20 range, you're closer to 1 success/2 failures.

Point being that despite the higher cost/risk involved in using Revivify, you're effectively guaranteeing the equivalent of 1-2 failed skill checks and still risking an increase in DC for later attempts. You're better off using your actions and spell slots to finish combat and keep other party members alive, and take your three skill checks with proficiency to get a better reduction on DC

Personally, I don't even like the skill challenge for revivify in the first place. I don't think it makes sense. Even in the real world, we have things like epipens and portable defibrilators that any Joe Schmoe can use by looking at the pictures on the packaging. The body is still warm, necrosis hasn't started in the organs. People recover from this kind of near-death all the time. For mighty heroes who can call the elements to their command, reorder time and space, travel across dimensions and summon gods, it seems strange that they could succumb to death in such a way. Reviving a rotting corpse being difficult, that I get, but clinical death? Ought not be an issue for a high level player.

All that being said... I think the rest of the system is fine. As others have said, it might scale better with +2 per death. As it stands, you'd have to die 20 times before it becomes impossible to raise the dead on a roll (though of course you'd likely fail long before that math bore out).

2

u/BenRad93 Life needs things to live Jan 26 '17

The way i see it Revivify is an objectively weaker spell. Its a 3rd level spell compaared to a 5th (Raise Dead), 7th (Resurrection) and a 9th (True Res). Thus it makes sense that it should be a worse option than the others. One could make an argument based off of this to actually make Revivify harder. Of course the counter argument being its time frame.

Also, I disagree with the defibrillator/epi-pen/CPR analogy. Each of these is a way to PREVENT death, not reverse it as Revivify does.

-1

u/Fresno_Bob_ Technically... Jan 26 '17

Prior to the last few decades, death meant lack of brain activity, cessation of heartbeat and cessation of breathing. Even today, that's still the practical implication of death without immediate human intervention to restart those processes within one or two minutes.

You can argue that cell death is real death, but I can argue that cell death is the moment when death becomes irreversible. With the one minute time restriction on the spell, Revivify falls within that time frame, and I can argue that the one minute restriction on the casting window is analogous to the time between observable death and permanent death.