D&D 5E Ressurrection Spells

[Atomo]

So, from the Basic Rules, we have the following ressurrection spells:

Revivify - Does not bring back old age dead (omitions about undead or about soul free and willing)
Raise dead - Brings back people whose soul is free and willing to return, does not work on undead (omitions about old age)
Ressurrection - Does not bring back old age dead, undead, and just people whose soul is free and willing to return
Ressurrection - Does not bring back old age dead, and just people whose soul is free and willing to return (omitions about undead)

My question is: do you think the omitions are intentional or just forgotten on wording? I am to say true ressurrection is powerful enough to bring back undead, but other omitions seems unintentional to me.

Discuss.

 

[bogmad]

So, from the Basic Rules, we have the following ressurrection spells:

Revivify - Does not bring back old age dead (omitions about undead or about soul free and willing)
Raise dead - Brings back people whose soul is free and willing to return, does not work on undead (omitions about old age)
Ressurrection - Does not bring back old age dead, undead, and just people whose soul is free and willing to return
Ressurrection - Does not bring back old age dead, and just people whose soul is free and willing to return (omitions about undead)

My question is: do you think the omitions are intentional or just forgotten on wording? I am to say true ressurrection is powerful enough to bring back undead, but other omitions seems unintentional to me.

Discuss.

I don't know. I think a lot of the omissions in spell text were intentional, but can't say for certain in this instance.

For instance, I was concerned at first glance that Greater Invisibility had less text than regular invisibility and was unable to be cast a higher level. At a closer look I realized however that while regular invisibility does the same thing as "Greater" and can be scaled, it also ends whenever you attack.
It makes sense that you can't cast Greater invisibility on more than one person, since at that point you can just just buff an entire party and not worry at all that enemies will never be able to know who's attacking them -makes most combats an uninteresting cake-walk.
Interesting that they force you to figure it out, rather than explicitly tell you what's better about G. Invisibility in the spell description.

 

[bogmad]

But yeah, I'd probably rule that True Resurrection worked on undead. If zombies are intelligent now though maybe that affects things.

It would depend on whether the DM is ruling the soul of the zombie were a willing participant of what gave the zombie intelligence, or if some other animating principle were behind the zombie intelligence.

If the intelligent soul of the zombie was resisting it's undead state that would be the deciding factor of whether Resurrection works. The only thing explicitly forbidding resurrection is old age, not being undead. I'd say undead is a magical curse, but the fact that it may be cast after death does put it in a bit of a grey area, RAW.

 

[Raith5]

The casting time is 1 hour for the main spells - I dont think the undead would stay still for that long! If you "kill"/destroy the undead, could you then cast the various spells. I mean it is not an undead any more.

I have to say that I am pretty surprised at the low level of revivify. I cant see may adventurers dying with a 5th level cleric around (presuming they keep a slot free). I think it would be more fun/challenging if the spell had to be cast on the next round or two - ie has to be cast in the combat rather than after.

 

[1of3]

I would assume that none of those spells can revive the undead. Unless you re-kill them before, of course. Or maybe have them sit nicely all through the ritual.

As for free will on Revivify, it makes sense. The soul might not have entered afterlife yet or come to like it. So why would it resist? I imagine the spell more like a magic defibrillator.

Old-age is a bit fuzzy in the first place. People do not really die of old age. They die of illnesses they cannot cope with anymore and physical wear that accrued over the years. But magic can cure illnesses and physical damage just fine. So what's the problem there?

Interesting that they force you to figure it out, rather than explicitly tell you what's better about G. Invisibility in the spell description.

I guess it's very hard to remember such things. People who knew older editions of D&D would just recognize the difference from looking at the Wizard Spell list, wondering if Invisibility Sphere is around, then realizing that Invisibility ate Invisibility Sphere at higher levels.

 

[Atomo]

Old-age is a bit fuzzy in the first place. People do not really die of old age. They die of illnesses they cannot cope with anymore and physical wear that accrued over the years. But magic can cure illnesses and physical damage just fine. So what's the problem there?

For the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that there is a maximum age you can live. When you was born, gods decided (for whatever inefable reason up to them) you just could live until your X years old. After this, you died from "old age". It is something analogue to the maximum age tables you had on 2nd edition, for example.

So, when you cross this arbitrary age line, you die from old age and cannot be brought back. EXCEPT by a raise dead spell. I am not 100% sure, but I think the omission here was accidental. Perhaps not.

 

[evilbob]

My question is: do you think the omitions are intentional or just forgotten on wording? I am to say true ressurrection is powerful enough to bring back undead, but other omitions seems unintentional to me.

My opinion is that true resurrection's undead language omission is intentional, and that yes, it can even bring back someone who has been turned undead.

This would further lead me to believe that the other spells would not be able to restore a slain zombie (for example) back to being a person. It also makes sense in a world-view (zombies would never be a problem again if level 9 clerics could constantly bring them all back).

The "old age" argument is a pretty sound one. But I think that may be getting too technical... The main idea seems to just be, "you can't cheat death forever with these spells." I'd think anything that doesn't venture into that area is probably ok.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have to say that I am pretty surprised at the low level of revivify. I cant see may adventurers dying with a 5th level cleric around (presuming they keep a slot free). I think it would be more fun/challenging if the spell had to be cast on the next round or two - ie has to be cast in the combat rather than after.

Actually it is pretty close to OD&D in some respects. An OD&D cleric can cast raise dead at 6th level, which was considered fairly high level.

 

[SkidAce]

But yeah, I'd probably rule that True Resurrection worked on undead. If zombies are intelligent now though maybe that affects things.

It would depend on whether the DM is ruling the soul of the zombie were a willing participant of what gave the zombie intelligence, or if some other animating principle were behind the zombie intelligence.

Evil shadow spirits from the nether realms bound into the bones of the former living. Very malicious and hungry for life...force...yum....

Will stand guard where told to...bound by the magics....etc etc.


THIIIMT (Thats How It Is IN MY World)