| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The Core Rulebook, Magic chapter says:
Death and Prepared Spell Retention: If a spellcaster dies, all prepared spells stored in his mind are wiped away. Potent magic (such as raise dead, resurrection, or true resurrection) can recover the lost energy when it recovers the character.
Raise Dead: A character who died with spells prepared has a 50% chance of losing any given spell upon being raised.
Breath of life has no such overriding clause.
Does this mean that prepared spell casters who are raised from the dead by breath of life lose all memorized spells?
Or none of them are gone. Doesn't say you lose spells in breath of life. Only mentions losing spells in the spell raise dead. So it's a part of that spell, not a general thing about death I feel.
A successful Breath of Life retroactively negates your ever having had the "dead condition" in the first place.
Where does it say that?
Or none of them are gone. Doesn't say you lose spells in breath of life. Only mentions losing spells in the spell raise dead. So it's a part of that spell, not a general thing about death I feel.
Did you read the section from the magic chapter that I quoted?
Raise dead changes the default assumption from losing all, to losing half, not from losing none to losing half.
I'm fairly convinced that as written breath of life removes all memorized spells, I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing something since almost nobody actually plays it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Breath of Life succeeds in raising you, it's like you never died in the first place. That's why you only have like a round to get it in before Raise Dead or better is your only option.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the original designer of breath of life... I can say that the intent was that it stops death the moment before it "takes hold." That's why it has to be cast so quickly after it happens. So, yes... if breath of life saves you, you never died in the first place, and thus you don't lose your spells. It's better to get breath of life than raise dead, in other words.
|
Where does it say that?I'd say Breath of Life is more of a Mulligan.
A successful Breath of Life retroactively negates your ever having had the "dead condition" in the first place.
Hence my preceeding sentence starting with "I'd say.."
The remainder of my explanation of my conjecture has been rendered moot by the golem.
I don't think I know anyone that would rule that you lose all spells automatically.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the original designer of breath of life... I can say that the intent was that it stops death the moment before it "takes hold." That's why it has to be cast so quickly after it happens. So, yes... if breath of life saves you, you never died in the first place, and thus you don't lose your spells. It's better to get breath of life than raise dead, in other words.Which solves what RAI was supposed to be, but if it is played by RAW, the recipient would lose all spells. That is untill an errata or a FAQ on the subject changes it.
Do what works for your game. Don't let waiting for errata hold your fun up.
Do what works for your game. Don't let waiting for errata hold your fun up.As the original designer of breath of life... I can say that the intent was that it stops death the moment before it "takes hold." That's why it has to be cast so quickly after it happens. So, yes... if breath of life saves you, you never died in the first place, and thus you don't lose your spells. It's better to get breath of life than raise dead, in other words.Which solves what RAI was supposed to be, but if it is played by RAW, the recipient would lose all spells. That is untill an errata or a FAQ on the subject changes it.
I feel like you should have a button on your keyboard to paste that.
I think this is a case where the spell doesn't break because of missing intended text/rules and there is a clear RAW. The spell still does it's purpose well and efficiently, regardless of spells lost or not. Your GM should play it whatever way he/she wants and, in PFS, it's probably going to go with the RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously for the first round you are only mostly dead...which is partly alive.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the original designer of breath of life... I can say that the intent was that it stops death the moment before it "takes hold." That's why it has to be cast so quickly after it happens. So, yes... if breath of life saves you, you never died in the first place, and thus you don't lose your spells. It's better to get breath of life than raise dead, in other words.Thanks for the clarification!
I'm super curious: Did you have any thoughts on the thread a while back asking whether gentle repose would extend that timer the same way it would extend the timer for raise dead, etc.?
Gentle repose shouldn't extend that timer, no, because breath of life affects you in that split second before you're actually dead, or at least that's the flavor implied (which is also why it shouldn't wipe your spells).
But that said, I do rename the spell to cure deadly wounds in my games so clerics can swap it out and cast it spontaneously...
... and, in PFS, it's probably going to go with the RAW.Or, not. As the GM may see fit. Table variation and all.
Right. I guess I should say expect RAW and don't try to argue it.
Do what works for your game. Don't let waiting for errata hold your fun up.As the original designer of breath of life... I can say that the intent was that it stops death the moment before it "takes hold." That's why it has to be cast so quickly after it happens. So, yes... if breath of life saves you, you never died in the first place, and thus you don't lose your spells. It's better to get breath of life than raise dead, in other words.Which solves what RAI was supposed to be, but if it is played by RAW, the recipient would lose all spells. That is untill an errata or a FAQ on the subject changes it.I feel like you should have a button on your keyboard to paste that.
I think this is a case where the spell doesn't break because of missing intended text/rules and there is a clear RAW. The spell still does it's purpose well and efficiently, regardless of spells lost or not. Your GM should play it whatever way he/she wants and, in PFS, it's probably going to go with the RAW.
Oh please don't misunderstand me. I always play by RAI over RAW in my homegames, and I have quite a lot of respect for JJ's posts on intent.
When I say something is RAW, it only means that it is how I understand the written word... But I always apply intent and I sometimes change things if I don't like the result.
But no matter how much we know what RAI is, the fact remains that the general rule is that you lose your prepared spells when you die, and because breath of life has no specific rule that changes the general rule, the general rule stands and thus RAW is that you lose the spells. PFS players specifically would be affected by this.
I didn't mean to come off accusing, my mistake. Yes, this could be FAQ'd to retain spells on death. I just don't think it makes or breaks the feat. Pointing out a potential fix does no harm, I just wouldn't expect it to ve modified or brought up anytime soon is all.
I don't think Gentle Repose would work, as the target is "corpse touched".
You're not actually a corpse in effect.
Thanks James for the response and everybody else for your thoughts.
|
Do what works for your game. Don't let waiting for errata hold your fun up.As the original designer of breath of life... I can say that the intent was that it stops death the moment before it "takes hold." That's why it has to be cast so quickly after it happens. So, yes... if breath of life saves you, you never died in the first place, and thus you don't lose your spells. It's better to get breath of life than raise dead, in other words.Which solves what RAI was supposed to be, but if it is played by RAW, the recipient would lose all spells. That is untill an errata or a FAQ on the subject changes it.
That reminds me of Havelock Vetinari. "Do not let me detain you."
Or maybe it brings back dhampirs that died within the past round. Those poor guys need some way to come back from the brink too!
|
That reminds me of Havelock Vetinari. "Do not let me detain you."Do what works for your game. Don't let waiting for errata hold your fun up.As the original designer of breath of life... I can say that the intent was that it stops death the moment before it "takes hold." That's why it has to be cast so quickly after it happens. So, yes... if breath of life saves you, you never died in the first place, and thus you don't lose your spells. It's better to get breath of life than raise dead, in other words.Which solves what RAI was supposed to be, but if it is played by RAW, the recipient would lose all spells. That is untill an errata or a FAQ on the subject changes it.
Oh, not really that much alike. The whole point of Vetinari's line is that it can be taken two ways; there's the innocuous "we're done here" interpretation, and the "don't do anything I wouldn't want you to do" warning that you would be well-advised to take into consideration.
I like the idea that an Inflict Deadly Wounds (Breath of Unlife?) spell brings back undead that have been destroyed for up to 1 round (if it would bring the undead up to more than 0 hp).
