Did you really think it would be that easy
-
Okay, so, thought experiment. Someone gets cut into a lot of pieces. What do you have to touch to resurrect them? The largest piece? Any piece? No piece, the body is destroyed? What constitutes ‘destroyed’? If getting cut into pieces counts, then how much of the body has to be missing?
RAW doesn’t really adequately address this situation.
My comment was about the plan for gentle repose, but if you’re talking about the resurrection spell it does have text that overcomes this problem, because it regenerates any lost limbs.
-
My comment was about the plan for gentle repose, but if you’re talking about the resurrection spell it does have text that overcomes this problem, because it regenerates any lost limbs.
Sure, but… which piece gets regenerated? The one you touch?
In that case, why couldn’t the spell be cast on the severed finger to regenerate an entire body attached to it?
-
Sure, but… which piece gets regenerated? The one you touch?
In that case, why couldn’t the spell be cast on the severed finger to regenerate an entire body attached to it?
It can. My problem was using gentle repose on a severed finger. Looking back it seems like that might not be what you were suggesting. If so my mistake.
-
It can. My problem was using gentle repose on a severed finger. Looking back it seems like that might not be what you were suggesting. If so my mistake.
Ah, sorry, I think there’s two different competing discussions happening in this same thread. I’m also getting confused about what’s being discussed.
I was proposing (for example) embalming a finger to prevent decay and having a permanent True Resurrection ‘target’, not using Gentle Repose specifically, but I can see where the ambiguity came from.
-
Ah, sorry, I think there’s two different competing discussions happening in this same thread. I’m also getting confused about what’s being discussed.
I was proposing (for example) embalming a finger to prevent decay and having a permanent True Resurrection ‘target’, not using Gentle Repose specifically, but I can see where the ambiguity came from.
Magic doesn’t make any sense. lol
-
This post did not contain any content.
Lord British be like
-
This really gets into the foundational expectations of the setting.
In a reality structured to allow for Heroes, a leader must be one, or else be replaced by the next one to stroll through.
Hero might be the wrong word except in the traditional sense of demigod. There’s an implicit positive moral judgement in the term that being a monarch has very little to do with.
I’d also argue that it’s more that monarchy by its own self justification is based on the idea that the king protects, and therefore effectively owns, his subjects. A king might do that by effective governance however. If they can’t do it personally they’d need the loyalty of a champion, for example.
-
I thought this was going to be spam. I recommend saying what you’re posting a link to. Or at least something that makes it clear you’re replying to a specific comment instead of posting that at random.
I responded to his comment about the Birthright setting with a video on the Birthright setting. I suppose I could have been more clear, but I definitely did respond to someone and did not post at random.
Funny thing, there was a 2e setting called Birthright, which pretty much made the game about developing land as a lord, rather than dungeon delving
-
I responded to his comment about the Birthright setting with a video on the Birthright setting. I suppose I could have been more clear, but I definitely did respond to someone and did not post at random.
Funny thing, there was a 2e setting called Birthright, which pretty much made the game about developing land as a lord, rather than dungeon delving
I know. It’s just that I only know because I clicked the link.
-
I know. It’s just that I only know because I clicked the link.
Fair enough. I will keep it in mind.
