| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Jun 2021 : 23:55:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
@Wooly
That goes back to the original problem: Mielikki shouldn't have had Regis' or Bruenor's souls/spirits to begin with. Moradin and Yondalla would have pipped up with "get your human-hugging mitts of our guys." And for them to come back, she should have had to come up with a better reason than "Look, they are a set. We can't just break 'em up."
Agreed. I found that highly questionable.
A better idea would have been some bad guy grabbing their souls for some nefarious purpose -- maybe like forcing them to fight Drizzt, with Drizzt knowing he was fighting his friends and would have to kill them. Of course then Drizzt finds some other option and eventually kills the bad guy, freeing his friends into their new lives.
Of course, that would put it all on mortal hands, and wouldn't use a deus ex machina... But who would want avoid a perfectly good deus ex machina?  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 08 Jun 2021 00:02:22 |
 |
|
|
Eldacar
Senior Scribe
438 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 00:44:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
@Wooly
That goes back to the original problem: Mielikki shouldn't have had Regis' or Bruenor's souls/spirits to begin with. Moradin and Yondalla would have pipped up with "get your human-hugging mitts of our guys." And for them to come back, she should have had to come up with a better reason than "Look, they are a set. We can't just break 'em up."
Agreed. I found that highly questionable.
If memory serves, the Iruladoon “waystation” was a choice. They could simply move on and go to their afterlives as per normal, or stay there with Catti-Brie and choose reincarnation, but either way it was their choice. Mielikki wasn’t forcing them beyond the initial bringing them there to make the offer. If anyone, I feel the god Mielikki would have had to get the all-clear from was Kelemvor, since it was his remit that she was dabbling with rather than Moradin or Yondalla, or Tempus for that matter. |
"The Wild Mages I have met exhibit a startling disregard for common sense, and are often meddling with powers far beyond their own control." ~Volo
"Not unlike a certain travelogue author with whom I am unfortunately acquainted." ~Elminster |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 03:46:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
If memory serves, the Iruladoon “waystation” was a choice. They could simply move on and go to their afterlives as per normal, or stay there with Catti-Brie and choose reincarnation, but either way it was their choice. Mielikki wasn’t forcing them beyond the initial bringing them there to make the offer. If anyone, I feel the god Mielikki would have had to get the all-clear from was Kelemvor, since it was his remit that she was dabbling with rather than Moradin or Yondalla, or Tempus for that matter.
I dunno, even giving them a choice is not something that would happen to other followers of those deities. Kelemvor's just supposed to pass them on, he's not supposed to let other deities interfere.
If anything, Kelemvor's buy-in would be involved, along with that of Moradin, Yondalla, or Tempus.
And I honestly don't see all of them buying into it without some obligation from both Mielikki and from the soul they were letting have another go-around. They'd each want something out of the deal, and both Mielikki and the reborn soul would have a debt to pay. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1294 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 05:58:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
It's easy to forget that raise dead is backed by a divine will; if a deity doesn't want a being revived, they're not coming back any more than a good priest - in a moment of insanity - is going to successfully flame strike an orphanage.
I should think it could involve two deities, myself -- the caster's and the recipient's. If a cleric of Mielikki tries to bring back a follower of Tempus, then I'd think that Mielikki and Tempus both would have to be fine with it -- Mielikki to approve the attempt, and then Tempus to approve releasing the soul back to the mortal world.
(Obviously, this wouldn't be an issue if both caster and recipient worshipped the same deity. And some deities might have agreements with their allies to "auto-approve" requests from each other's followers)
That's fair. It also makes raising the dead a trickier proposition for an evil individual that was in the process of turning to good; Illmater may be fine with his priest resurrecting a fully repentant Cyricist, but Cyric probably won't be willing to relinquish that precious soul.
Basically, there are quite a few requirements/steps involved in bringing back someone from the afterlife.
- A cleric/priest must be at least Level 9 (the minimum Level required to cast raise dead).
- In pre-3e D&D, a cleric/priest must have the Necromantic Sphere as one of their Major Spheres.
- The cleric/priest in question must presently have access to raise dead, resurrection and/or true resurrection. We take this for granted, but there are instances where this isn't the case...maybe the devotee in question somehow abused these spells in the past and must learn a lesson or maybe a far-reaching ontological event (such as the Time of Troubles) is negating all resurrective magic.
- The cleric/priest in question must be willing to perform the deed.
- In D&D 3e and beyond, the requester must have the requisite material payment on hand (typically a diamond).
- With raise dead, the spell must be cast on an intact body within a number of days equal to the priest's level and, in pre-3e D&D, it does not work on elves. With resurrection, the spell must be cast on some remains (typically bones) within a number of decades equal to the priest's level. true resurrection requires nothing more than solid information on the being that died, but the same time limit for resurrection applies.
- The god of the cleric/priest in question must allow the resurrection to occur.
- If you're following Wooly Rupert's suggestion, the patron deity of the deceased must allow the soul to return to the land of the living.
- The deceased that is summoned must want to return; their will cannot be subverted...or at least directly subverted.
- In pre-3e D&D, the deceased has to make a successful "Resurrection Survival" roll (think of it as a Constitution roll) to survive the process of having their soul placed back into a mortal shell.
- In pre-3e D&D, the cleric/priest in question that casts resurrection is aged by three years upon a successful revival; the only way to reverse this that I know of is to consume either a potion of longevity (itself an increasingly risky proposition) or the more reliable elixir of youth...neither of which can be purchased. Furthermore, the cleric/priest in question must rest a day per Level/Hit Dice of the resurrected if they wish to cast further spells and/or engage in combat.
Finally, if that same recently-revived being was returned with raise dead, they may only be similarly raised a number of times equal to their Constitution score (this may have changed in D&D 5e). With either raise dead or 3e+ resurrection, the recently-revived being loses a point of Constitution.
I am sure that I missed a few additional stipulations, but I did manage to list most of the crucial ones. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 06:29:13
|
| Based on Azar's and Wooly's guidelines, I would say the most likely recipient of a resurrection would be a merchant. Waukeen's clerics have major access to the Necromantic sphere. They would also be bringing back someone who's patron would likely be Waukeen. And, they would likely have the cash on hand to pay for it. That would also been a good reason for a merchant to donate substantial amounts of money to the Church of Waukeen. Buying divine favor for business deals AND gaining favor with the Church so they are more likely to resurrect you. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 10:57:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
It's easy to forget that raise dead is backed by a divine will; if a deity doesn't want a being revived, they're not coming back any more than a good priest - in a moment of insanity - is going to successfully flame strike an orphanage.
No matter the conditions or how unlikely it is, if there's a chance of it, you can be sure that most people and most characters who lose a loved one would think of attempting a resurrection. That's nearly always ignored in FR fiction, and it's the same as wanting to have your cake and eat it too. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1294 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 12:08:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
Based on Azar's and Wooly's guidelines, I would say the most likely recipient of a resurrection would be a merchant. Waukeen's clerics have major access to the Necromantic sphere. They would also be bringing back someone who's patron would likely be Waukeen. And, they would likely have the cash on hand to pay for it. That would also been a good reason for a merchant to donate substantial amounts of money to the Church of Waukeen. Buying divine favor for business deals AND gaining favor with the Church so they are more likely to resurrect you.
That is logical. There's a lot of liquidity in the church of Waukeen. Both cash and souls are constantly flowing in a great gaudy divine cycle  . Hm...I wonder if this "advantage" encourages or discourages nepotism among the merchant class. I can imagine generations of reasonably successful merchants resurrecting within their bloodlines until they die of ripe old age.
By the way, 2e Morninglords of Lathander improve the chance of a subject being successfully revived; that strength of their particular faith coupled with their god's solidly amiable nature would make them a popular choice for Good and even Neutrally-aligned folks.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
It's easy to forget that raise dead is backed by a divine will; if a deity doesn't want a being revived, they're not coming back any more than a good priest - in a moment of insanity - is going to successfully flame strike an orphanage.
No matter the conditions or how unlikely it is, if there's a chance of it, you can be sure that most people and most characters who lose a loved one would think of attempting a resurrection. That's nearly always ignored in FR fiction, and it's the same as wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
If the fiction is based at least in part on how 3e+ D&D operates, then there's going to be a large monetary cost involved...in a world where most people are decidedly middle class or lower. Naturally, a majority of them will consider the idea of seeking an appropriate priest and some may make even make the attempt, but that summit is simply beyond the reach of your average citizen. Come to think of it, an individual becoming an adventurer - with all the risk that entails - in order to accumulate enough material wealth to resurrect their kin/partner makes a fair bit of sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Dallison
Gene therapy is available in the real world but prohibitively expensive and only available in certain places with certain conditions. Following your logic everyone with a genetic disorder or with children with a genetic disorder would be attempting to get treatment here by any means (selling their house, their body, their organs committing criminal acts).
I dont think thats the case, the gene therapy centres are not swamped, so one can only assume that people understand what is within the realms of possibility for them and accept their fate accordingly.
Kudos for that slice of real-world unfairness  . |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 12:18:26
|
@Gary, If someone had a loved one who could only be saved through an expensive therapy, and they were aware of it, you can bet a lot of people would want to try it and try to do something to acquire the resources for it. Plenty of stories about this kind of stuff, and that's true for any kind of therapy. However, gene therapy is a bad comparison, because:
1)still a matter of study, and there's a very limited number of illnesses (often rare) that have an approved treatement with it, and not all are life-threatening
2)The most widespread illness that it can cure is cancer, that already has other treatments. Besides, CAR-T cells treatments for certain kinds of cancer (mostly blood cancers) are actually available to more people than you'd think (at least here in Italy--publich healthcare offers it, AFAIK).
3)Do you work in the field? How do you know how many requests are made or how many fundraiser are started, and so on? Why do you talk like trying every possible route to afford an expensive cure for an ill person that you hold dear is a rare thing?
Anyway, compare with resurrection: it's better known, far easier to perform, far easier to ask for (in Waterdeep, you can go to temples and ask for a resurrection--and we even see that in Ed's novels). Most importantly, unlike gene therapy, it cures all kinds of deaths if you have the body, except death from old age. So, you can apply it to literally anyone, unlike gene therapy that currently can only be used by very few people. If such a thing existed IRL, it'd be the same as a universal panacea with a given % chance to succeed--you have that chance to cure literally any illness, with the only caveat that you have to do it after the death. Do you think that people or even healthcare systems wouldn't think of it?
Setting that aside, it doesn't matter whether X god actually grants the rezzing, making a character act like resurrection wasn't a thing, in a world where it's on the same level as FR, is an objective mistake in characterization. You don't get to eat your cake and have it too. Think a mother who loses her kid, and doesn't even think of resurrection. Lol...
Resurrection is one of those things that redically alter the world, and that even more radically alters people's perception of things (even when resurrection is just a filmsy chance). That's undeniable, and it isn't to be introduced lightly.
Finally, we're talking about characters in novels. They're FAR from your avarage joe, and tend to have much more resources available than your average Joe. They should totally think of resurrection.
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
If the fiction is based at least in part on how 3e+ D&D operates, then there's going to be a large monetary cost involved...in a world where most people are decidedly middle class or lower. Naturally, a majority of them will consider the idea of seeking an appropriate priest and some may make even make the attempt, but that summit is simply beyond the reach of your average citizen. Come to think of it, an individual becoming an adventurer - with all the risk that entails - in order to accumulate enough material wealth to resurrect their kin/partner makes a fair bit of sense.
As I said, it doesn't matter whether they actually succeed or not:
Narrative delves into the human mind and emotions, we see the character's thought process, feelings, and filter the world through their senses and mind. Since human reactions are extremely important in a novel, if resurrection is possible, you need to write the reactions of your characters accordingly.
This stuff is why you don't just randomly put stuff like resurrection in a setting without asking yourself why, and how it relates to the narrative of that setting. This is what I said:
quote:
But yeah, overall resurrection isn't good to have in a novel setting (unless your story revolves around that, and you built the setting for the story), because it creates a large disconnection between the characters and the readers in how a fundamental and inveitable part of life is perceived, and while this kind of stuff can be a fun to explore in a story (so, as I mentioned, the story is *about* that), it isn't a good thing to have "just lying there" in the setting. It makes the construction of empathy much harder. Unfortunately, most D&D settings used for novels happen to come with this element.
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 08 Jun 2021 13:02:45 |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 15:10:03
|
| I would really like to thank everyone for the resurrection discussion. This has given me new insights into the various churches, merchants, and the function of patrons. Just one quick thing, if a deity gains power from living worshippers, they would be more likely to NOT block a resurrection if it was done by another power. They are getting the return of a power generator without any outlay of their own power. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 15:35:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
It's easy to forget that raise dead is backed by a divine will; if a deity doesn't want a being revived, they're not coming back any more than a good priest - in a moment of insanity - is going to successfully flame strike an orphanage.
I should think it could involve two deities, myself -- the caster's and the recipient's. If a cleric of Mielikki tries to bring back a follower of Tempus, then I'd think that Mielikki and Tempus both would have to be fine with it -- Mielikki to approve the attempt, and then Tempus to approve releasing the soul back to the mortal world.
(Obviously, this wouldn't be an issue if both caster and recipient worshipped the same deity. And some deities might have agreements with their allies to "auto-approve" requests from each other's followers)
That's fair. It also makes raising the dead a trickier proposition for an evil individual that was in the process of turning to good; Illmater may be fine with his priest resurrecting a fully repentant Cyricist, but Cyric probably won't be willing to relinquish that precious soul.
Basically, there are quite a few requirements/steps involved in bringing back someone from the afterlife.
- A cleric/priest must be at least Level 9 (the minimum Level required to cast raise dead).
- In pre-3e D&D, a cleric/priest must have the Necromantic Sphere as one of their Major Spheres.
- The cleric/priest in question must presently have access to raise dead, resurrection and/or true resurrection. We take this for granted, but there are instances where this isn't the case...maybe the devotee in question somehow abused these spells in the past and must learn a lesson or maybe a far-reaching ontological event (such as the Time of Troubles) is negating all resurrective magic.
- The cleric/priest in question must be willing to perform the deed.
- In D&D 3e and beyond, the requester must have the requisite material payment on hand (typically a diamond).
- With raise dead, the spell must be cast on an intact body within a number of days equal to the priest's level and, in pre-3e D&D, it does not work on elves. With resurrection, the spell must be cast on some remains (typically bones) within a number of decades equal to the priest's level. true resurrection requires nothing more than solid information on the being that died, but the same time limit for resurrection applies.
- The god of the cleric/priest in question must allow the resurrection to occur.
- If you're following Wooly Rupert's suggestion, the patron deity of the deceased must allow the soul to return to the land of the living.
- The deceased that is summoned must want to return; their will cannot be subverted...or at least directly subverted.
- In pre-3e D&D, the deceased has to make a successful "Resurrection Survival" roll (think of it as a Constitution roll) to survive the process of having their soul placed back into a mortal shell.
- In pre-3e D&D, the cleric/priest in question that casts resurrection is aged by three years upon a successful revival; the only way to reverse this that I know of is to consume either a potion of longevity (itself an increasingly risky proposition) or the more reliable elixir of youth...neither of which can be purchased. Furthermore, the cleric/priest in question must rest a day per Level/Hit Dice of the resurrected if they wish to cast further spells and/or engage in combat.
Finally, if that same recently-revived being was returned with raise dead, they may only be similarly raised a number of times equal to their Constitution score (this may have changed in D&D 5e). With either raise dead or 3e+ resurrection, the recently-revived being loses a point of Constitution.
I am sure that I missed a few additional stipulations, but I did manage to list most of the crucial ones.
Thank you for this trip down memory lane (to be clear, that was an honest and true thank you, don't read sarcasm into it). I remembered things being more stringent in the 2e days, but my memory itself was playing games with me and its helpful to see things as you have written them up. Keeping the rulesets clear across all these editions can get wearying.
What this response has made me think about is "how have things changed, and were they changed for the better?". A lot of times with all these game changes, we as players and DM's find ourselves simply thrust into trying and figuring out "what's new" and simply putting our minds into "current mode" so that you don't confuse things. However, it very much could be worth reviewing back through some of the options used across the years.
First: Elves are different... my view.. chuck this and never ever consider returning to it. You MIGHT consider something like this for some non-player race to show how alien they are, but just don't do it with players. The only conceivable reason I can see for this from a game perspective is "we can overpower elves and simply use the .. if they die they're dead... rule to justify it". Yeah, you can come up with metaphysical mumbo jumbo reasons, but first and foremost, this is a game.
2nd) With FR, finding the requisite 9th level priest willing to perform the action... shouldn't be an issue. They'll do it and expect some service in return. If the service is especially deadly and likely to kill the returned person, well... that's the price you pay for a few more days of living. Now, if someone refuses to fulfill the service.... well, then we have to question if they'll ever be raised a second time. They might even have to turn to darker gods as a result (see next section too).
3rd) With 3e and beyond, there's the material requirement. I definitely say to keep this for balance reasons, though I might simply say "make it an offering of money that the god takes". From a metaphysical standpoint, I like the idea of the god taking this money himself and "transmitting" it to his other temples, with a requirement to his priests that they use the money to build worship. That may be by using the money to buy food for the poor, clothes for the orphanage, or simply new materials for a god of crafting, party supplies for a god of revelry, or used to hire a mercenary to cause problems for a god of fear, etc... In such a way, players might seriously consider WHO they are asking to raise their dead, because you are very much AIDING that god in multiple ways if you are not only providing a service but also funding their worship.
4th) On the idea of multiple deities agreeing to this transfer... what about another option. What if these death raising spells actually bypass the "holding deity" and go straight to the soul and allow their free will to take hold. Thus, it becomes simply "X deity is reaching in to offer you a lifeline, do you accept?". To note, this might FORCE deities to make sure their dead WANT to stay with them. So, a Banite soul would need to be given an afterlife where they feel powerful, for example, and not a worm. To be clear here, I'm not saying "this is the way it is", I'm saying "we've been changing things for years without some true introspection.... is this idea better?"
In this way, a person might go to say Ilmater and say "I need you to raise this evil person" and they might require the raised person AND the requester both to perform services for the church.
Of course, the OTHER way would make these services much less likely to work. Both have a story potential mind you. Its a question of which seems better for potentials. The examples I give would be admittedly rare.
5th) resurrection revival check - This isn't a bad idea. I can see a lot of DM's fudging it based on their mood, but it makes sense that the body "just might not be ready". Exactly how to calculate the percentage might be worth looking at, with age of the person reducing this being an option. Constitution should probably also apply. In fact, now that I think on it, having age applying with people who are unnaturally controlling their age might really help for the people who have been living hundreds of years. However, a "set" age thing might need to take into account the normal length of people's lives.
6th) aging a person after resurrection - I can honestly say, I rarely kept track of the "age" of my characters, as getting a DM to define how much time has passed wasn't always amenable, and many campaigns just didn't last that long. However, IF we were to use the aforementioned where the resurrection survival percentage were calculated with age as a parameter, then it definitely would make sense to age a person every time they revive.
7th) Reduction of Constitution as a result of resurrection - This makes sense. If constitution will be how you control your number of resurrections, then this should be permanent though.
8th) Adding another factor that modifies your revival check - Using age and constitution as modifiers make sense to us, but it brings up questions like "well, what about elves that live 400 years" or "what about the guy with a 20 constitution versus the guy with a 12"...... So maybe INSTEAD we add another score that subtracts from your resurrection survival check, but it might be a set score that increases each time you are raised (it might even be increased more if resurrected from nothing versus raised from an intact body). Maybe add some other factor that also ties in for every say 50 years that you live beyond maybe 200 years old. Let's for the sake of argument call this score soul/body separation score... someone can come up with a better name for me if they like.
This last one could even be something that you could be given reductions in as a "reward" by a DM that won't typically unbalance a game. Gods might reduce this score when you serve them, and chosen might have some ADDITIONAL bonus so long as they continue to serve. This score might not reflect your "health" so much like aging and constitution does, but rather your "soul bond to your flesh" that withers away with time. There might even be spells that someone can cast that raises this soul/body separation score on a person before you kill them to try and make sure they don't return from the dead.
This can also factor back into that "service required by the person revived to the church that revived them". Maybe as part of raising the person, the casting priest can set a required service, that the person's soul will know before accepting, and until they complete this service, this soul/body separation score is raised by a huge amount.
You could even have other factors of the game take into account this soul/body separation score... for instance, maybe if it goes up above a certain amount, you start taking MORE damage from necrotic spells, or spells that age you are especially effective.
EDIT: and as I think on that last option soul/body separation score.... it should be maybe be called soul bond penalty so as to reflecting it not "increasing" and you getting "reductions" as bonuses. It might be like set percentage failure chances that keep going down that affect your revival check (i.e. -10% on your revival check, and if you don't complete the reviving priest's requested service, its decreased by 50% more to -60%).
EDIT: An additional factor that could be used in all this might be that resurrection survival checks that fail might result in the creation of a ghost or other unruly undead spirit.
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 08 Jun 2021 16:18:39 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 15:55:23
|
Okay, now diverting onto a tangent kinda related to my original question... I just saw someone say on the Facebook that Cattie-Brie is immortal. Is that true, and if so, how did it happen?
Artemis Entreri is also immortal, now, too, isn't he? He like stabbed a shade with Charon's Claw and it made him immortal, I read -- but did it make him a shade? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 16:11:17
|
@sleyvas
Chance of survival of Resurrection was covered in 2e rules being based on a character's Constitution with 100% chance only happening for 18 Con and higher. Below is what it says:
"Resurrection Survival lists a character's percentage chance to be successfully resurrected or raised from death by magic. The player must roll the listed number or less on percentile dice for the character to be revived. If the dice roll fails, the character is dead, regardless of how many times he has previously been revived. Only divine intervention can bring such a character back again."
Edit: fixed typo |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
Edited by - TheIriaeban on 08 Jun 2021 16:16:14 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 16:22:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
@sleyvas
Chance of survival of Resurrection was covered in 2e rules being based on a character's Constitution with 100% chance only happening for 18 Con and higher. Below is what it says:
"Resurrection Survival lists a character's percentage chance to be successfully resurrected or raised from death by magic. The player must roll the listed number or less on percentile dice for the character to be revived. If the dice roll fails, the character is dead, regardless of how many times he has previously been revived. Only divine intervention can bring such a character back again."
Edit: fixed typo
Yep, there were rules. I know. What I'm saying is "were they good rules" and "can we improve them"? After all, should a player be punished further for having died because... let's say they had a con of 8 and very few hit points... and now they can't get resurrected either because, well they have a con of 8. Maybe resurrection should have little to do with the health of a dead body.... because all dead bodies are inherently unhealthy... and more to do with the soul and its ability to bond to a body. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 16:35:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
@sleyvas
Chance of survival of Resurrection was covered in 2e rules being based on a character's Constitution with 100% chance only happening for 18 Con and higher. Below is what it says:
"Resurrection Survival lists a character's percentage chance to be successfully resurrected or raised from death by magic. The player must roll the listed number or less on percentile dice for the character to be revived. If the dice roll fails, the character is dead, regardless of how many times he has previously been revived. Only divine intervention can bring such a character back again."
Edit: fixed typo
Yep, there were rules. I know. What I'm saying is "were they good rules" and "can we improve them"? After all, should a player be punished further for having died because... let's say they had a con of 8 and very few hit points... and now they can't get resurrected either because, well they have a con of 8. Maybe resurrection should have little to do with the health of a dead body.... because all dead bodies are inherently unhealthy... and more to do with the soul and its ability to bond to a body.
I agree with it being a Constitution thing, because a stronger, more robust body is going to be able to deal with the stress of being shut down and rebooted. Death is obviously not an easy thing on the body, so undoing it would similarly be difficult.
I don't see the soul having an issue trying to bond to a body when that soul has occupied that body for the entire length of time the body was alive. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Eldacar
Senior Scribe
438 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 17:04:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Okay, now diverting onto a tangent kinda related to my original question... I just saw someone say on the Facebook that Cattie-Brie is immortal. Is that true, and if so, how did it happen?
Artemis Entreri is also immortal, now, too, isn't he? He like stabbed a shade with Charon's Claw and it made him immortal, I read -- but did it make him a shade?
I don't know about Catti-brie's "immortality" but I would think that any immortality (or more specifically long-lived nature, since it's not like she can't die, she just ages slowly) she has is likely a result of her being Mielikki's Chosen, or from the spellscars she still has. Or both, perhaps. She had a strand of the Weave fall into her before/during the Spellplague as well. Or the person might just be confusing her reincarnation for immortality.
Entreri is long-lived because of two things, first being the shade he killed with his vampiric dagger. He stabbed it and it drained "too much" into him, transforming him into a part-shade sort of person and away from unaltered human. He's still human[, there's just a bit of weirdness mixed in that lengthened his lifespan. Then at some point the second thing happened: Netherese from Shade were seeking Charon's Claw (which was Netherese in origin). They used magic to tie Entreri's life force to the sword, enslaving him to whoever carried the weapon. Ultimately he reclaimed it with Drizzt's help, and they tossed the sword into the Great Forge at Gauntlgrym (this didn't destroy it, but did break the link). |
"The Wild Mages I have met exhibit a startling disregard for common sense, and are often meddling with powers far beyond their own control." ~Volo
"Not unlike a certain travelogue author with whom I am unfortunately acquainted." ~Elminster |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 17:20:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Okay, now diverting onto a tangent kinda related to my original question... I just saw someone say on the Facebook that Cattie-Brie is immortal. Is that true, and if so, how did it happen?
Artemis Entreri is also immortal, now, too, isn't he? He like stabbed a shade with Charon's Claw and it made him immortal, I read -- but did it make him a shade?
I don't know about Catti-brie's "immortality" but I would think that any immortality (or more specifically long-lived nature, since it's not like she can't die, she just ages slowly) she has is likely a result of her being Mielikki's Chosen, or from the spellscars she still has. Or both, perhaps. She had a strand of the Weave fall into her before/during the Spellplague as well. Or the person might just be confusing her reincarnation for immortality.
Entreri is long-lived because of two things, first being the shade he killed with his vampiric dagger. He stabbed it and it drained "too much" into him, transforming him into a part-shade sort of person and away from unaltered human. He's still human[, there's just a bit of weirdness mixed in that lengthened his lifespan. Then at some point the second thing happened: Netherese from Shade were seeking Charon's Claw (which was Netherese in origin). They used magic to tie Entreri's life force to the sword, enslaving him to whoever carried the weapon. Ultimately he reclaimed it with Drizzt's help, and they tossed the sword into the Great Forge at Gauntlgrym (this didn't destroy it, but did break the link).
A strand of Weave fell onto Cattie-Brie? 
Drizzt helped Entreri? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2390 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 18:05:32
|
The part where Lolth despises complacency in general and occasionally shakes her can of spiders in particular, it's consistent.
And she is right about it. The Path of Lolth became more of a defensible yet stagnant dead-end long ago. Stirring keeps them at least somewhat adaptable.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Drizzt's life is very much an example of the adage from one of the deity books: Death is not a career-ending injury. And yet, with more reason than most to be hopeful that he'd see his friends again, he instead ignored logic (no bodies, and his friends had time to escape) and his own past history (everything in my prior post) and assumed they were gone forever.
TBH, assuming that everything turned out the worst way possible instead of trying to figure out less pessimistic versions is not out of character.
Drizzt is more or less the drow version of emo teen. As such, his mental processes tend to fall in the pit of "Oh noes, wherever I go... DOOM AND GLOOM follow!". |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
Edited by - TBeholder on 08 Jun 2021 18:06:11 |
|
|
|
Eldacar
Senior Scribe
438 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 18:58:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
A strand of Weave fell onto Cattie-Brie?
Drizzt helped Entreri?
Catti-Brie caught a faceful of blue fire when the Spellplague happened. It blasted her soul halfway into another dimension with a "strand" of the torn-up Weave attached to her. Drizzt, the rest of his friends, and so on tried to draw her back, but they couldn't get anything to work and so ultimately Mielikki came and collected Catti-Brie instead, carrying her away to Iruladoon.
Following her reincarnation in a new body (a Bedine girl), she still has the marks of it in the form of twin spellscars, one in the shape of Mielikki's holy symbol (since she was made Chosen of Mielikki) and the other a seven-pointed star weeping red mist (Mystra's symbol, the bit of the Weave).
Drizzt helping Entreri was partially because Entreri gave up on their enmity. He had spent a century enslaved and really just wanted to get free and go anywhere, he'd take help from anyone at that point. It was a very slow path to redemption, and one that he's honestly still walking. I doubt that I would call Entreri good at the current point Salvatore's books are at, but he's no longer the same old evil assassin after his travels with Jarlaxle and others.
It's been several years since I last read any of those 3e-4e-5e transition novels regarding Entreri, however, so I could be misremembering some of the details. He did begrudgingly help Drizzt a few times since getting free of Charon's Claw, but his main connection and tie is to Jarlaxle, not Drizzt (since Jarlaxle is his friend). |
"The Wild Mages I have met exhibit a startling disregard for common sense, and are often meddling with powers far beyond their own control." ~Volo
"Not unlike a certain travelogue author with whom I am unfortunately acquainted." ~Elminster |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 20:02:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
@sleyvas
Chance of survival of Resurrection was covered in 2e rules being based on a character's Constitution with 100% chance only happening for 18 Con and higher. Below is what it says:
"Resurrection Survival lists a character's percentage chance to be successfully resurrected or raised from death by magic. The player must roll the listed number or less on percentile dice for the character to be revived. If the dice roll fails, the character is dead, regardless of how many times he has previously been revived. Only divine intervention can bring such a character back again."
Edit: fixed typo
Yep, there were rules. I know. What I'm saying is "were they good rules" and "can we improve them"? After all, should a player be punished further for having died because... let's say they had a con of 8 and very few hit points... and now they can't get resurrected either because, well they have a con of 8. Maybe resurrection should have little to do with the health of a dead body.... because all dead bodies are inherently unhealthy... and more to do with the soul and its ability to bond to a body.
I agree with it being a Constitution thing, because a stronger, more robust body is going to be able to deal with the stress of being shut down and rebooted. Death is obviously not an easy thing on the body, so undoing it would similarly be difficult.
I don't see the soul having an issue trying to bond to a body when that soul has occupied that body for the entire length of time the body was alive.
But the body stopped working... or in other instances like resurrection/true resurrection literally was nothing but bones OR was created from nothing. If the body stopped working, then its "viability" rapidly decreases.
I guess we might look at it like a person who is in a coma and comes back. They quickly lose the ability to walk..... and that's with blood still pumping through their bodies and everything. They have to go through physical therapy. Perhaps having a high con is being able to recover the ability to react/walk/interact quicker, but not survive the return of the soul. The raise/resurrection does amazing magic, returning the soul and entirely negating the need to go through therapy, but that's only if the body and soul (which are separate entities) can be once again united first.
Or to put it another way (i.e. mechanics).... if you want to stop resurrections from becoming a revolving door, one way would be to put some controls in place that are not based on a score which player will naturally already want hyped up or which already . If it becomes "well, what do you want to enhance, your ability to revive or your CON which gives you more hp so you don't die in the first place", . |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1294 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2021 : 23:34:14
|
| sleyvas, if one wants the process of resurrection to be as easy as heading to the nearest temple that features at least one sympathetic priest, that can easily be house ruled. By default, however, there are enough limitations to make bringing back the dead at least moderately burdensome to all but the highest level/most affluent individuals. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2021 : 10:35:05
|
On the "generic resurrection" tangent.
There is a short story* by Elaine of the adventures of Liriel and her adventuring sisters where she thinks a lot about resurrecting Fyodor. It's a great example of the kind of thought that is needed in a fantasy setting where an afterlife aligned with each being's sensitivity is guaranteed to basically everyone.
Beside practicalities, I would expect almost any priest being approached for a resurrection to spend a lot of time "studying the case" and making damn sure whoever is asking is aware of the full consequences of the resurrection (i.e. "Are you sure you want your mother to be snatched from the Golden Fields of Chauntea to live a few more years, if lucky, with you and then undergo the extremely painful process of death again?").
Personally, I would expect most souls, in absence of very strong pulls from the Prime (i.e. their family is threatened and they are the only ones that can make a difference, their loved one is left alone facing powerful enemies, etc...), to be content in their chosen afterlife.
Most adventurers would probably want to be resurrected but the 90+% of ordinary people probably don't mind staying in a better place ("Coming down again to freeze and starve to death next winter as my fields were abandoned? No, thanks").
Add to this the costs involved, the other conditions (finding a powerful enough cleric, having a body) and even the lowliest versions of resurrection are outside the feasibility of most rural and working class citizens Faerun-wide. Add other miscellanea conditions (like nobles losing hereditary rights if resurrected, merchant houses having multiple scions thus maybe not wanting/needing to resurrect one of their own for economic interests, a war or other catastrophe that wipes out entire families, displaces and kills many and economically destroys more, etc...) and the percentage of non-adventuring Faerunians that can actually be resurrected is quite small.
To sum up my ramblings, to resurrect someone you need to fulfill some conditions:
1) Someone has to actually want them back and jump through all the hoops;
2) Have a powerful enough cleric, have all the material components (including the body or parts of it);
3) The deceased soul needs to want to come back;
These are all issues for average-joes-and-janes that prevent most people having access to resurrection but should not be a problem for Drizzt&Co, only 3) is left standing and that's dealt with through author's fiat.
* EDIT: FR Wiki to the rescue, the short story is: Elaine Cunningham (May 2007). “Answered Prayers”. The Best of the Realms III (Wizards of the Coast). ISBN 978-0-7869-4288-6.
|
Edited by - Demzer on 09 Jun 2021 10:40:33 |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1294 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2021 : 11:45:46
|
| I took a look at 5e's trio of resurrective spells; it appears as though some of 4e's MMORPG-inspired design was carried over. Basically, they not only trivialize the process of raising the dead, but they also reduce the attendant penalties/consequences to virtually nothing. If your tabletop Forgotten Realms session is supposed to take after video games/massively-multiplayer online role-playing games where death is a momentary speed bump, this makes sense. However, if you want your campaign to more closely emulate legends/myths/fairy tales where resurrection is a costly miracle, you'll likely be disappointed. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Eldacar
Senior Scribe
438 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2021 : 15:39:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
I took a look at 5e's trio of resurrective spells; it appears as though some of 4e's MMORPG-inspired design was carried over. Basically, they not only trivialize the process of raising the dead, but they also reduce the attendant penalties/consequences to virtually nothing.
5E rules generally trend toward simplicity as a design goal where possible; hence things like skills being plain Proficiency + ability score modifier (after the utter mess that was skill points in 3rd edition, especially non-retroactive skill point increases). Any added complexity is free for the DM to do on a table by table basis - some of the more popular livestreamed games include their own resurrection rules for this very purpose.
If you only looked at the spell text and not the cleric class as a whole, then it may be worth pointing out as well that spell slots are limited in 5E compared with previous editions, as are the number of spells you can have memorised at a time (cleric level + Wisdom modifier). As a case in point, for raise dead (5th level), a 10th level cleric will have two 5th level spell slots. A 13th level cleric will have two 5th level spell slots. A 17th level cleric... still just has two 5th level spell slots. Similarly, whether you are 6th level or 20th level you get just three 3rd level slots. |
"The Wild Mages I have met exhibit a startling disregard for common sense, and are often meddling with powers far beyond their own control." ~Volo
"Not unlike a certain travelogue author with whom I am unfortunately acquainted." ~Elminster |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2021 : 20:38:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
I took a look at 5e's trio of resurrective spells; it appears as though some of 4e's MMORPG-inspired design was carried over. Basically, they not only trivialize the process of raising the dead, but they also reduce the attendant penalties/consequences to virtually nothing. If your tabletop Forgotten Realms session is supposed to take after video games/massively-multiplayer online role-playing games where death is a momentary speed bump, this makes sense. However, if you want your campaign to more closely emulate legends/myths/fairy tales where resurrection is a costly miracle, you'll likely be disappointed.
Yep, and add onto that with no LIMIT to the NUMBER of them, which is basically what I was hinting at in the discussion above (developing something that starts to limit the number of times). So, the guy might get raised, oh 75 times between revivify (3rd lvl) and raise dead (lvl 5) attempts. All with very cheap costs (300 gp and 500 gp respectively). Granted, you gotta have the spell slot, but I think I've seen (won't swear) that there are some even methods to do revivify for free as like class abilities or something. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2021 : 21:55:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
I took a look at 5e's trio of resurrective spells; it appears as though some of 4e's MMORPG-inspired design was carried over. Basically, they not only trivialize the process of raising the dead, but they also reduce the attendant penalties/consequences to virtually nothing. If your tabletop Forgotten Realms session is supposed to take after video games/massively-multiplayer online role-playing games where death is a momentary speed bump, this makes sense. However, if you want your campaign to more closely emulate legends/myths/fairy tales where resurrection is a costly miracle, you'll likely be disappointed.
Yep, and add onto that with no LIMIT to the NUMBER of them, which is basically what I was hinting at in the discussion above (developing something that starts to limit the number of times). So, the guy might get raised, oh 75 times between revivify (3rd lvl) and raise dead (lvl 5) attempts. All with very cheap costs (300 gp and 500 gp respectively). Granted, you gotta have the spell slot, but I think I've seen (won't swear) that there are some even methods to do revivify for free as like class abilities or something.
Ouch. I can see why Wooly said he didn't like the 5e magic system. I wouldn't like that either. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2021 : 23:24:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
I took a look at 5e's trio of resurrective spells; it appears as though some of 4e's MMORPG-inspired design was carried over. Basically, they not only trivialize the process of raising the dead, but they also reduce the attendant penalties/consequences to virtually nothing. If your tabletop Forgotten Realms session is supposed to take after video games/massively-multiplayer online role-playing games where death is a momentary speed bump, this makes sense. However, if you want your campaign to more closely emulate legends/myths/fairy tales where resurrection is a costly miracle, you'll likely be disappointed.
Yep, and add onto that with no LIMIT to the NUMBER of them, which is basically what I was hinting at in the discussion above (developing something that starts to limit the number of times). So, the guy might get raised, oh 75 times between revivify (3rd lvl) and raise dead (lvl 5) attempts. All with very cheap costs (300 gp and 500 gp respectively). Granted, you gotta have the spell slot, but I think I've seen (won't swear) that there are some even methods to do revivify for free as like class abilities or something.
Ouch. I can see why Wooly said he didn't like the 5e magic system. I wouldn't like that either.
I won't be a proponent that their spell design and balance is good, because there's some definite balance/design issues. They also need MORE spells just to cover some basic concepts that they mention, but you can't implement. I WILL give them however props for the idea that you memorize your spells and then can use your slots to cast anything you have memorized. I think its too limited a number, but that's why you develop rules to allow someone to specialize in having a lot of spells somehow "available". I will give them props for limiting your number of spell slots more (which if someone wants to be the person with more slots, there should be a path for that as well).
I guess I should say that when it comes to 5e, I do like that they put in severe curtails to a spellcasters power. You can only have so many attuned items. You only have so many memorized spells. You only have so many spell slots, which is a lot less than prior editions. You can only maintain a limited number of spells at once. You can't have a bajillion contingent/hung spells. That being said.... at the same time, they haven't followed through and given us the option for people to take SOME of these options and BREAK them.... which allows a person to design a "special" character. I like to mention a lot of these types of things, because when there is a 6th edition (or a new pathfinder that everyone goes to), its good to point out ideas and concepts to play with. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1294 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2021 : 01:02:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I won't be a proponent that their spell design and balance is good, because there's some definite balance/design issues. They also need MORE spells just to cover some basic concepts that they mention, but you can't implement. I WILL give them however props for the idea that you memorize your spells and then can use your slots to cast anything you have memorized. I think its too limited a number, but that's why you develop rules to allow someone to specialize in having a lot of spells somehow "available". I will give them props for limiting your number of spell slots more (which if someone wants to be the person with more slots, there should be a path for that as well).
I guess I should say that when it comes to 5e, I do like that they put in severe curtails to a spellcasters power. You can only have so many attuned items. You only have so many memorized spells. You only have so many spell slots, which is a lot less than prior editions. You can only maintain a limited number of spells at once. You can't have a bajillion contingent/hung spells. That being said.... at the same time, they haven't followed through and given us the option for people to take SOME of these options and BREAK them.... which allows a person to design a "special" character. I like to mention a lot of these types of things, because when there is a 6th edition (or a new pathfinder that everyone goes to), its good to point out ideas and concepts to play with.
I really hate being flippant, because my primary goal here (and on other boards related to D&D) is to brainstorm with others while occasionally creating something that someone else may one day enjoy and flippancy rarely positively contributes on that front. Still, it is difficult to not be a little snippy when a system that discourages/disallows characters from simultaneously benefitting from fly, haste, stoneskin and invisibility also makes death a moderate nuisance. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
Edited by - Azar on 10 Jun 2021 01:07:27 |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2021 : 01:05:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yep, and add onto that with no LIMIT to the NUMBER of them, which is basically what I was hinting at in the discussion above (developing something that starts to limit the number of times). So, the guy might get raised, oh 75 times between revivify (3rd lvl) and raise dead (lvl 5) attempts. All with very cheap costs (300 gp and 500 gp respectively). Granted, you gotta have the spell slot, but I think I've seen (won't swear) that there are some even methods to do revivify for free as like class abilities or something.
Ouch. I can see why Wooly said he didn't like the 5e magic system. I wouldn't like that either.
I won't be a proponent that their spell design and balance is good, because there's some definite balance/design issues. They also need MORE spells just to cover some basic concepts that they mention, but you can't implement. I WILL give them however props for the idea that you memorize your spells and then can use your slots to cast anything you have memorized. I think its too limited a number, but that's why you develop rules to allow someone to specialize in having a lot of spells somehow "available". I will give them props for limiting your number of spell slots more (which if someone wants to be the person with more slots, there should be a path for that as well).
I guess I should say that when it comes to 5e, I do like that they put in severe curtails to a spellcasters power. You can only have so many attuned items. You only have so many memorized spells. You only have so many spell slots, which is a lot less than prior editions. You can only maintain a limited number of spells at once. You can't have a bajillion contingent/hung spells. That being said.... at the same time, they haven't followed through and given us the option for people to take SOME of these options and BREAK them.... which allows a person to design a "special" character. I like to mention a lot of these types of things, because when there is a 6th edition (or a new pathfinder that everyone goes to), its good to point out ideas and concepts to play with.
The group I played with in 2e saw that as a problem back then and developed a spell point system that did something similar. Quick and dirty about it, you still had your standard number of spell slots but casting a spell cost spell points (and the cost increased with the level of the spell). You could cast any spell you had memorized as long as you had the spell points to cover the cost. Also, things like a ring of wizardry would only increase the number of spells you could memorize but not the number of spell points you had. That way, you could be ready for more situations without an increase in actual power. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
|
|
|
HighOne
Learned Scribe
214 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2021 : 01:49:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
The group I played with in 2e saw that as a problem back then and developed a spell point system that did something similar. Quick and dirty about it, you still had your standard number of spell slots but casting a spell cost spell points (and the cost increased with the level of the spell).
That's pretty much the system outlined in Player's Option: Spells & Magic, isn't it? I remember a lot of groups preferring it over the Vancian magic system that D&D uses by default. In 5E, the sorcerer class is sort of supposed to replicate that system, I think (with "sorcery points" taking the place of spell points), but it doesn't do a very good job of it. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
How did Zaknafein return?
