Hell, clarification at all on whether the dust is still considered a Dead Creature would be nice.
Agreed, I think that if we ask a designer, they're going to go with disintegrate > BoL (unless perhaps, that designers is JJ and he's only talking about his home game).
I don't think that per RAW, it is 100% that BoL can't bring you back from a Disintegrate death. If were at the table, as player or GM, I wouldn't push for it, but my personal feelings and preferences aren't what determines RAW.
You fall to 0 hit points and are then reduced to dust. I would consider being reduced to dust to be the equivalent of 1000d6 extra points of damage. So if you can heal all that with your Breath of Life, you're fine.
You fall to 0 hit points and are then reduced to dust. I would consider being reduced to dust to be the equivalent of 1000d6 extra points of damage. So if you can heal all that with your Breath of Life, you're fine.
Per RAW, you are either at the actual negative amount that Disintegrate reduced you to, or an amount equal to your negative Constitution score.
Irontruth, that is not entirely true.
The RAW that states you are an amount equal to your negative Constitution score applies to Death Attacks. Is this a Death Attack?
Now, with that said I can easily see extending it to cover non-Death Attacks that are similar to Death Attacks (ie: Flesh to Stone, Phantasmal Killer, etc) but by RAW, it is for Death Attacks only.
- Gauss
How many HP of damage do I have to do with Flame Strike to reduce someone to ashes?
HP + Con?
2xHP?
4xHP?
8xHP?
10000xHP?
I suspect the answer is 'somewhere between 8 and 10000x hp'. Or at least, that is the argument that I would hear if someone got killed, and set on fire, and burned at 2d6 for 4-5 rounds. I think they'd argue that the corpse is still 'more or less intact' other than looking like a pig at the BBQ.
However, even 4-5 rounds of fire, after death, would reduce you to say, on average, if you were already at -CON, an additional 7 * 5 = 35hp? And you still wouldn't be ashes.
Just for grins, I looked up how long it takes a normal cremation to occur. That's reducing the body to ashes (although honestly not completely, there's still teeth and a few bone bits).
How long does it take to cremate a body?
Cremating at the optimum temperature (1400-1800 degrees), the average weighted remains takes 2 to 2 1/2 hours. Several more hours may be required before the cremated remains are available to the family.
So, it takes about 2 hours (600 rounds) of burning a body to reduce it to ashes. And that's at 1400-1800 degrees. So, say, 4d6 per round? 14 hp * 600 rounds... 8400 hp. To reduce you to the same state as Disintigrate...
Just saying...
Lava does 20d6 damage per round.
Lava is typically between 1300 and 2400 F degrees.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Irontruth, that is not entirely true.
The RAW that states you are an amount equal to your negative Constitution score applies to Death Attacks. Is this a Death Attack?
Now, with that said I can easily see extending it to cover non-Death Attacks that are similar to Death Attacks (ie: Flesh to Stone, Phantasmal Killer, etc) but by RAW, it is for Death Attacks only.
- Gauss
It's listed in the Death Attack section, but it's universal:
"In case it matters, a dead character no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score." (emphasis mine).
Interesting. That means breath of life pretty much always works, even if the person was at 1 hit point, then smashed into a thin red paste by a titan's 100 damage critical with a mattock. Good to know.
RAW, breath of life either works on disintegrate or doesn't reverse any death ever. The assumption that you need a whole body is just that. It isn't detailed in the spell description, and assuming that the "Target: creature touched" line covers it would lead to breath of life not working ever, since there's no target classification difference between someone killed by bleeding out from a regular sword wound or someone killed by disintegrate--the remains are either creatures or not creatures. Since breath of life is presumed to have that clause about bringing someone back to life for a reason, I have to believe that any touchable remains at all, even dust, can be restored with breath of life.
Interesting. That means breath of life pretty much always works, even if the person was at 1 hit point, then smashed into a thin red paste by a titan's 100 damage critical with a mattock. Good to know.Irontruth, that is not entirely true.
The RAW that states you are an amount equal to your negative Constitution score applies to Death Attacks. Is this a Death Attack?
Now, with that said I can easily see extending it to cover non-Death Attacks that are similar to Death Attacks (ie: Flesh to Stone, Phantasmal Killer, etc) but by RAW, it is for Death Attacks only.
- Gauss
It's listed in the Death Attack section, but it's universal:
"In case it matters, a dead character no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score." (emphasis mine).
Bolded a bit I think you may have overlooked.
You fall to 0 hit points and are then reduced to dust. I would consider being reduced to dust to be the equivalent of 1000d6 extra points of damage. So if you can heal all that with your Breath of Life, you're fine.Per RAW, you are either at the actual negative amount that Disintegrate reduced you to, or an amount equal to your negative Constitution score.
No, it just says your hit points are equal to your negative Con or lower than that. 'Reduced to dust' would be an example of hit points lower than that.
No, it just says your hit points are equal to your negative Con or lower than that. 'Reduced to dust' would be an example of hit points lower than that.You fall to 0 hit points and are then reduced to dust. I would consider being reduced to dust to be the equivalent of 1000d6 extra points of damage. So if you can heal all that with your Breath of Life, you're fine.Per RAW, you are either at the actual negative amount that Disintegrate reduced you to, or an amount equal to your negative Constitution score.
For your hit points to change numbers, something has to happen. Disintegrate already tells you how much damage it does, and it's not 1000d6.
Overall, I think the issue is both the complexity of the system and the demands that people place on it when asking questions, particularly when looking for official clarification.
Technically, Disintegrate doesn't add any condition or status that prevents BoL from working. It's obvious when you read the text of the spell that it shouldn't work, but "dust" isn't a special form of death that's covered in the rulebook. It's purely descriptive, as compared to petrified, which is clearly codified.
I think it's possible to discern the intent of the design team, particularly when you look at Reincarnate. Breath of Life does have limitations and allowances written into the spell, but Disintegrate doesn't distinctly break them.
Giving Disintegrate a connection to an already existing term would have been much cleaner and more effective, making it's relationship to other spells and effects much easier to predict.
It also highlights one of the biggest flaws in magic in PF/D&D IMO. Instead of more generalized rules/effects that are drawn upon, we have hundreds of spells written up and eventually almost each of them has to be adjudicated against all the others.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, I see nothing in BoL that turns you back into a person from a trace of fine dust. Whether it can bring you "back to life" is therefore moot. You're a pile of dust.
I don't find the argument that there isn't a "dust" or "disintegrated" condition very compelling. Dust is dust, how it functions in the game is fairly intuitive. We shouldn't need a defined "dust" condition, anymore than we need to be told that dead characters can't act. If the game needed to define every situation and corner case, we'd need a 500+ page Core Dictionary to go along with our Core Rulebook, and I already hate lugging that thing around as is!
Where dust is relevant (i.e. resurrection) special considerations have been made. BoL isn't one of those cases.
(If you really want to go down the RAWbbit hole, show me where getting turned into dust by disintegrate actually kills you :) Next time your GM drops you to -1 with a disintegrate, demand that your Orc Ferocity or Die Hard feat lets you continue to act in dust form! After all, there's no "disintegrated" condition!)
|
<snip>"but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death"</snip>
I really wish Winterwalker cited where he found this because I feel it to be quite relevant.
If you consider the dust to be valid target for spells that target Dead Creatures, Breath of Life should work fine considering the snip above.
Also keep in mind that you can't target creatures you can't target, I'm surprised this needs saying.
There is no comparison between targetting things that you can't affect and targetting things you can't target.
One the spell is completed and nothing is achieved.
Two the spell can't be cast.I can't target an invisible creature with magic missile therefore I cannot cast the spell.
I copied that from Urklore the irons original post way back on page 1, under the rules for being dead -> conditions I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to have to remember RAWbbit hole. I love it!
- Gauss
For your hit points to change numbers, something has to happen. Disintegrate already tells you how much damage it does, and it's not 1000d6.
The damage specified by disintegrate triggers a further effect - being reduced to dust - if your hit points fall to zero or lower. Being reduced to dust is an example of something happening. The rulebook doesn't specify how much damage you take from being reduced to a fine powder. This is either because a creature or object takes no damage from being reduced to a fine powder, or because they take so much damage from it that it's not worth specifying an amount because it's so ridiculously high. I choose the latter.
For your hit points to change numbers, something has to happen. Disintegrate already tells you how much damage it does, and it's not 1000d6.The damage specified by disintegrate triggers a further effect - being reduced to dust - if your hit points fall to zero or lower. Being reduced to dust is an example of something happening. The rulebook doesn't specify how much damage you take from being reduced to a fine powder. This is either because a creature or object takes no damage from being reduced to a fine powder, or because they take so much damage from it that it's not worth specifying an amount because it's so ridiculously high. I choose the latter.
Which you can do, but you just house ruled it.
Come on.
If there was a spell that functioned just like disintegrate only after it killed you, it lopped off an arm, what would breath of life do at best? At best you'd be alive, with an arm missing, right? Because cure spells don't regenerate missing body parts.
So think. You lose all of your body parts. Even if you're generous and allow that breath of life restores you to a living condition, you don't have a functional body. So you die again. Or stay dead.
This isn't complicated unless you want it to be. Yes, it's obvious there's some phraseology problems with breath of life's target line since anyone who dies via hitpoint damage isn't a creature anymore. It's equally obvious the text should read "object that was a creature that died from hitpoint damage within the last round" or some such unwieldy verbiage. Meh.
Come on.
If there was a spell that functioned just like disintegrate only after it killed you, it lopped off an arm, what would breath of life do at best? At best you'd be alive, with an arm missing, right? Because cure spells don't regenerate missing body parts.
So think. You lose all of your body parts. Even if you're generous and allow that breath of life restores you to a living condition, you don't have a functional body. So you die again. Or stay dead.
This isn't complicated unless you want it to be. Yes, it's obvious there's some phraseology problems with breath of life's target line since anyone who dies via hitpoint damage isn't a creature anymore. It's equally obvious the text should read "object that was a creature that died from hitpoint damage within the last round" or some such unwieldy verbiage. Meh.
Dead
The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/conditions#TOC-Dead
Ok Urklore,
Here's one for you.
Vorpal weapon hits an undammaged Dragon with a crit on the first attack. Dragon goes from 150hp to -con, and his head pops off and rolls around.
The kobold cleric with the dragon casts BoL on the head. The head is a viable target, by your arguments, it's a body part and the spell doesn't limit it to 'biggest' or anything by your arguments.
Head regrows an entire body.
The kobold Oracle with the dragon casts BoL on the body. The body is a viable target, by your arguments, it's a body part and the spell doesn't limit it to 'biggest' or have any limits about only being the target of the spell once, so the body regrows a head.
Two dragons.
Same applies to humans, instant cloning.
Ok Urklore,
Here's one for you.Vorpal weapon hits an undammaged Dragon with a crit on the first attack. Dragon goes from 150hp to -con, and his head pops off and rolls around.
The kobold cleric with the dragon casts BoL on the head. The head is a viable target, by your arguments, it's a body part and the spell doesn't limit it to 'biggest' or anything by your arguments.
Head regrows an entire body.
The kobold Oracle with the dragon casts BoL on the body. The body is a viable target, by your arguments, it's a body part and the spell doesn't limit it to 'biggest' or have any limits about only being the target of the spell once, so the body regrows a head.
Two dragons.
Same applies to humans, instant cloning.
I can repaste the same line I keep bolding if you like.
Here it is again just for you mdt:
...but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death.
However you said: "Head regrows an entire body." That's a house rule you may have made up to support your argument. Thematics are not being discussed here. Just whether it works or not.
Ok Urklore,
Here's one for you.Vorpal weapon hits an undammaged Dragon with a crit on the first attack. Dragon goes from 150hp to -con, and his head pops off and rolls around.
The kobold cleric with the dragon casts BoL on the head. The head is a viable target, by your arguments, it's a body part and the spell doesn't limit it to 'biggest' or anything by your arguments.
Head regrows an entire body.
The kobold Oracle with the dragon casts BoL on the body. The body is a viable target, by your arguments, it's a body part and the spell doesn't limit it to 'biggest' or have any limits about only being the target of the spell once, so the body regrows a head.
Two dragons.
Same applies to humans, instant cloning.
Who exactly has argued that you can cast the spell multiple times on different body parts to make clones?
You're inventing a scenario, that no one was proposed, which you don't think should be possible either. There's a name for that in debate terminology.
BizBag, your arguments are RAW only right? No interpretation about adding abilities or whatever to the spell? Then you have a problem. Breath of Life doesn't say anything about a soul, does it? Ergo, a soul is not required to return the dragon head to life, nor the dragon body. So both can be done.
Urklore, your quote has nothing to do with the question. The question is, why can the dust regrow an entire body, but the head can't regrow an entire body? Nothing in the spell says it has to be cast on the largest remnants, it just says dead creature right? The head is a dead creature, so is the body. You can't have it both ways, either you are arguing that the spell doesn't specifically stop something and is therefor allowed yes? Nothing in the spell prevents it from cast on both body parts, and your interpretation leads to two dragons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who exactly has argued that you can cast the spell multiple times on different body parts to make clones?You're inventing a scenario, that no one was proposed, which you don't think should be possible either. There's a name for that in debate terminology.
You have stated there is no restriction in BoL that says it has to have a body to cast, yes? And therefore dust is ok, yes? Because it will regrow the body.
Please specify why the dragon head is not a viable target then. it's certainly more of a body than the dust was. Also nothing in the spell talks about any limitation on the spell not being able to be cast more than once. Please cite the RAW on that, since you have asked for that repeatedly from others. I see nothing in the spell limiting it to only be cast on one body part. If there were, then dust would not be viable.
EDIT : And yes, in debate it's called 'Using your opponents argument against them through continuation of logical conclusion'.
BizBag, your arguments are RAW only right? No interpretation about adding abilities or whatever to the spell? Then you have a problem. Breath of Life doesn't say anything about a soul, does it? Ergo, a soul is not required to return the dragon head to life, nor the dragon body. So both can be done.
Urklore, your quote has nothing to do with the question. The question is, why can the dust regrow an entire body, but the head can't regrow an entire body? Nothing in the spell says it has to be cast on the largest remnants, it just says dead creature right? The head is a dead creature, so is the body. You can't have it both ways, either you are arguing that the spell doesn't specifically stop something and is therefor allowed yes? Nothing in the spell prevents it from cast on both body parts, and your interpretation leads to two dragons.
You are arguing thematics again, which has no place here, as that is up to the DM to determine what/how the in-between works. The RAW rules I posted supports me, your made up fantasy does not.
I have avoided even entertaining arguing with you, as it is not related to the current topic. Feel free to post a new thread with your made up scenario and I'll head over there to comment on why it would or wouldn't work.
either a creature or object takes no damage from being reduced to a fine powder, or because they take so much damage from it that it's not worth specifying an amount because it's so ridiculously high. I choose the latter.Which you can do, but you just house ruled it.
Ruling that reducing something to powder does no damage to it is also a house rule.
To answer the question of dragon head / body, if you want to have a Breath of Life that fixes people who have been killed by means that would thwart normal healing, I'd flavor it so that the head and body are reversed in time and reunited. Similarly, the disintegrated body could go back in time six seconds and be a whole person again. I don't think that's RAI, but it wouldn't break the game.
either a creature or object takes no damage from being reduced to a fine powder, or because they take so much damage from it that it's not worth specifying an amount because it's so ridiculously high. I choose the latter.Which you can do, but you just house ruled it.Ruling that reducing something to powder does no damage to it is also a house rule.
To answer the question of dragon head / body, if you want to have a Breath of Life that fixes people who have been killed by means that would thwart normal healing, I'd flavor it so that the head and body are reversed in time and reunited. Similarly, the disintegrated body could go back in time six seconds and be a whole person again. I don't think that's RAI, but it wouldn't break the game.
Again, Thematics. Leave that to the DM. :) Though I can that being an acceptable outcome if I ran into it.
Bolded a bit I think you may have overlooked.Interesting. That means breath of life pretty much always works, even if the person was at 1 hit point, then smashed into a thin red paste by a titan's 100 damage critical with a mattock. Good to know.Irontruth, that is not entirely true.
The RAW that states you are an amount equal to your negative Constitution score applies to Death Attacks. Is this a Death Attack?
Now, with that said I can easily see extending it to cover non-Death Attacks that are similar to Death Attacks (ie: Flesh to Stone, Phantasmal Killer, etc) but by RAW, it is for Death Attacks only.
- Gauss
It's listed in the Death Attack section, but it's universal:
"In case it matters, a dead character no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score." (emphasis mine).
D'oh. Yep.
The rest stands.
You are arguing thematics again, which has no place here, as that is up to the DM to determine what/how the in-between works. The RAW rules I posted supports me, your made up fantasy does not.I have avoided even entertaining arguing with you, as it is not related to the current topic. Feel free to post a new thread with your made up scenario and I'll head over there to comment on why it would or wouldn't work.
Translation : I don't like the natural conclusion to my argument, I can't refute it, and so I am going to take my ball and go home and pout.
Ruling that reducing something to powder does no damage to it is also a house rule.To answer the question of dragon head / body, if you want to have a Breath of Life that fixes people who have been killed by means that would thwart normal healing, I'd flavor it so that the head and body are reversed in time and reunited. Similarly, the disintegrated body could go back in time six seconds and be a whole person again. I don't think that's RAI, but it wouldn't break the game.
But nothing in the spell says it reverses time, nor that it reunites body parts.
What if the head landed at the base of a cliff, at the feet of the second caster. The two body parts far beyond the spells range?
The point of the argument, of course, is to point out what happens when you ignore reasonableness and insist on spells doing things because they don't say you can't. If it works on a handful of dust and reconstitutes the entire body, it should work on a head, or a hand, or a thigh and do the same thing.
Since this sounds exactly like my Wednesday night Runelords game from last week, I guess I should explain myself.
The BoL wasn't cast the same round, it was cast on the same initiative tick. The bad guy and the PC cleric had the same tick, he just went first. (Mokmurian, from "Fortress of the Stone Giants")That, coupled with the fact the gnome sorcerer only missed the save by 1 (yes Grant, you missed it by 1!) is why I decided the cleric was able to get there before he was totally reduced to a lil pile of dust. In any other situation (bigger margin of failure on the save, slower action by the cleric) this would have been a kill shot. Instead I gave him the staggered condition for 1d6 rounds (and promptly rolled a 1) and moved the combat along.
It was my call based on the near miss saving throw and the immediate action taken practically at the same time by the cleric. Is it a perfect call? Not likely. Most aren't. RAW it is likely dead wrong. But it stopped the book races going on around the table and got us back to playing the game, which is what I invited people over to do in the first place.
Translation : (REDACTED)
You are arguing thematics again, which has no place here, as that is up to the DM to determine what/how the in-between works. The RAW rules I posted supports me, your made up fantasy does not.I have avoided even entertaining arguing with you, as it is not related to the current topic. Feel free to post a new thread with your made up scenario and I'll head over there to comment on why it would or wouldn't work.
Don't make it personal please, no need for that, please delete that comment so I don't have to report it. The sandbox is for nice people to discuss rules not bully people.
Ruling that reducing something to powder does no damage to it is also a house rule.To answer the question of dragon head / body, if you want to have a Breath of Life that fixes people who have been killed by means that would thwart normal healing, I'd flavor it so that the head and body are reversed in time and reunited. Similarly, the disintegrated body could go back in time six seconds and be a whole person again. I don't think that's RAI, but it wouldn't break the game.
But nothing in the spell says it reverses time, nor that it reunites body parts.
What if the head landed at the base of a cliff, at the feet of the second caster. The two body parts far beyond the spells range?
The point of the argument, of course, is to point out what happens when you ignore reasonableness and insist on spells doing things because they don't say you can't. If it works on a handful of dust and reconstitutes the entire body, it should work on a head, or a hand, or a thigh and do the same thing.
I'm just going to repost this rule I have bolded a few times in regards to how spells work in this scenario, because it kinda does reverse time, at least to the point they died, which was some point in the past, but again the thematics are usually up to the DM, the rules however still support my side of this debate,
" ...but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies."
For anyone arguing that "dust" is an object, and therefore an invalid target for the spell...I feel the need to point out the fact that a corpse is also considered an object and, via the same logic, should be an invalid target as well...
EDIT: Never mind, it's been covered.
This is just going to be a GM call. I can't see this debate ending with community consensus.
I see valid arguments for it working and not working. If I were GM, I would personally say "no" for disintegrate because raise dead is the same level and specifically describes how and what it heals (regarding body parts and the like), whereas breath of life does not say anything about restoring the body, only the state of being dead or alive, in terms of hit points. As a result, in my most favorable interpretation, you have gathered up dust, cast breath of life, and have made those specs of dust into a live pile of cells, and without some sort of oxygen and nutrient delivery system, that pile of cells won't last very long. But, that pile of cells could perhaps be the intermediary step in a much larger plan. So, if the players had a crazy plan where this was the first step, I'd see where it goes. But now the discussion is out of scope, so I'll stop here.
For fun, consider the implications on trolls and/or the spell regenerate!
This is one of those cases where the RAW is written badly when it comes to preventing rules-lawyering, but where the RAI is so very clear.
Translation : (REDACTED)
You are arguing thematics again, which has no place here, as that is up to the DM to determine what/how the in-between works. The RAW rules I posted supports me, your made up fantasy does not.I have avoided even entertaining arguing with you, as it is not related to the current topic. Feel free to post a new thread with your made up scenario and I'll head over there to comment on why it would or wouldn't work.
Don't make it personal please, no need for that, please delete that comment so I don't have to report it. The sandbox is for nice people to discuss rules not bully people.
May I suggest you look back over your own posts, many of which have been insulting?
For anyone arguing that "dust" is an object, and therefore an invalid target for the spell...I feel the need to point out the fact that a corpse is also considered an object and, via the same logic, should be an invalid target as well...
EDIT: Never mind, it's been covered.
Extensively. Heh. Plus they're stating that while a corpse remains a target for spells that target Dead Creatures, they believe dust is not.
" ...but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies."
So shouldn't this passage allow the body to be restored for the purposes of Breath of Life. I would think this to be somewhat general of a rule. If your eyes explode from the heat of the fireball killing you, do you come back blind?
|
RAW, I see nothing in BoL that turns you back into a person from a trace of fine dust. Whether it can bring you "back to life" is therefore moot. You're a pile of dust.
This
Breath of Life is not a transmutation effect. It won't recreate a body.
If if it did raise your hit point total above zero, your still a pile of dust.
RAW, I see nothing in BoL that turns you back into a person from a trace of fine dust. Whether it can bring you "back to life" is therefore moot. You're a pile of dust.This
Breath of Life is not a transmutation effect. It won't recreate a body.
If if it did raise your hit point total above zero, your still a pile of dust.
Neither are all the spells that restore your body. Seems to me that isn't a trait exclusive to transmutation spells.
|
|
Neither are all the spells that restore your body. Seems to me that isn't a trait exclusive to transmutation spells.RAW, I see nothing in BoL that turns you back into a person from a trace of fine dust. Whether it can bring you "back to life" is therefore moot. You're a pile of dust.This
Breath of Life is not a transmutation effect. It won't recreate a body.
If if it did raise your hit point total above zero, your still a pile of dust.
Resurrection contains explicit language that allows a disintegrated body to be restored.
Breath of Life does not.
Why do that think that language had to be included? By your interpretations, that language should not have been necessary and Raise Dead should have worked.
RAW, I see nothing in BoL that turns you back into a person from a trace of fine dust. Whether it can bring you "back to life" is therefore moot. You're a pile of dust.This
Breath of Life is not a transmutation effect. It won't recreate a body.
If if it did raise your hit point total above zero, your still a pile of dust.
Neither is Regenerate. Neither is Resurrection.
As I have said before, Resurrection never even states it creates the missing parts of the body. It is an implication of the other conditions of the spell (can be used on a small part of a body, doesn't include Raise Dead language on missing body parts).
Breath of Life includes neither Raise Dead's language about needing a whole body, nor Resurrection's language about needing only part.
|
|
Resurrection never even states it creates the missing parts of the body.
It does contain language that allows a destroyed or partial body to be restored. It even covers disintegration explicitly.
The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature's body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature's body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.)