Breath of Life lacks the restrictive wording that Raise Dead has.No, breath of life lacks the enabling details that dictate any repair to a body beyond the hit point damage it heals. The raise dead spell has limits to the repair it specifically offers. By not offering repair beyond hit point damage, breath of life has no need to include limiting text.
Again, the Dead condition indicates spells repair bodies based on the details of those spells. breath of life details no repairs beyond hit point damage. Higher level spells offer additional spells, with lesser and lesser restrictions as you raise spell level, but at increasing cost.
Because it doesn't need the information because Dead provides it for it.
A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life (Here we bring in Breath of Life as 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 (Either of these options fix our problem)(depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies. (And now the crux of my argument, here it says we no longer need to worry about the conditions of the body when applying magic that brings back the dead, I take this to mean obviously having a body of dust would be worrysome to the PC, so his body is reconstructed with the dust being a blueprint for his body for the magic.)
My thoughts in parentheses.
Hmmm,
I think there's a misconception here.
BoL is NOT primarily a raise dead spell. It is a healing spell. You can cast it on someone who's just down on HP and they'll get healed.
It's a healing spell that has a special ability to possibly raise the dead, but it's not primarily a raise dead spell. Just like a scythe has the special ability to trip really well. But it's not primarily a trip weapon.
So I'm more and more questioning that there's even any remote connection between the quoted 'raise dead powers' paragraph that people keep quoting as proof BoL turns a handful of dust into a whole body.
Fireball can set things on fire. We don't consider it a spell designed ot start campfires.
It isn't "Raise Dead Powers."
Its a very vague term called "Magic that restores a dead character to life."
Breath of Life is magic. Breath of Life can bring a dead character back to life.
EDIT: Raise Dead is also a healing spell mate. And they're both conjuration spells. Spells often attributed with the ability to create.
This is awesome.
I get the feeling that this thread is about 240 posts beyond the point where anyone cares what the other guys are saying, and everyone is just arguing because the argument is fun.
I could be wrong. But we're way over 200 posts with the same guys saying the same things and nobody's listening.
Time to move on?
I kinda hoped for more hits on FAQ really. The silly Thundercaller ability got more hits faster than an actually vague section of the rules.
There was a FAQ somewhere in this argum... er, uh, discussion?
;)
Most people just hit the first post with it.
If I ever play a game where a GM, even PFS or the RAWest group ever, allows a player to act while dead (actually full-on dead, not Ferocity or similar effects, and not undead), I will buy a hat and eat it.
Yeah, sure. The point was directed at those who are all RAW RAW RAAAAWWWWWW about who can be raised and not. Like, "when you're dead you're not a creature so you can't be targeted and raise dead doesn't work". If you wanna go hardcore RAW then death is a pretty weak deterrent to begin with since you can just have someone stabilize you and continue on your way.
I see the RAI on most of the issues here as crystal clear (for example that you CAN target a dead creature).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I ever play a game where a GM, even PFS or the RAWest group ever, allows a player to act while dead (actually full-on dead, not Ferocity or similar effects, and not undead), I will buy a hat and eat it.Yeah, sure. The point was directed at those who are all RAW RAW RAAAAWWWWWW about who can be raised and not. Like, "when you're dead you're not a creature so you can't be targeted and raise dead doesn't work". If you wanna go hardcore RAW then death is a pretty weak deterrent to begin with since you can just have someone stabilize you and continue on your way.
I see the RAI on most of the issues here as crystal clear (for example that you CAN target a dead creature).
I answered this several pages back, and I don't think I was the first one, but here it is for reference since it seems to have been lost in the debate-go-round:
Link: A dead-creature CAN be BOTH an object AND a dead-creature AT THE SAME TIME.
In fact, a dead-creature IS both things at the same time. Saying "Nuh uh, it's an object now so it isn't a dead-creature anymore" is just plain silly. It's semantically wrong, mechanically wrong, and as my linked post shows, there are plenty of similar game mechanics where an object is simultaneously an object and something else too.
Awwwwwww, crap, now I've become one of the guys saying the same thing but nobody's listening...
Or are they?
Dare I dream?
|
I'd say no here. Allowing BoL to work in this situation implicitly allows it to work as a regenerate spell as well. Actually, it would be better than a regenerate since regenerate only works on living creatures, takes 3 rounds to cast, is two levels higher, heals less damage, and requires multiple rounds to restore missing body parts.
If BoL can restore a person turned to a pile of dust, by extension it would have to be able to restore missing limbs or organs as well on whomever it is cast. This is far beyond the intended scope of the spell and makes it better than a higher level spell in most situations.
I'd say no here. Allowing BoL to work in this situation implicitly allows it to work as a regenerate spell as well. Actually, it would be better than a regenerate since regenerate only works on living creatures, takes 3 rounds to cast, is two levels higher, and requires multiple rounds to restore missing body parts.
If BoL can restore a person turned to a pile of dust, by extension it would have to be able to restore missing limbs or organs as well on whomever it is cast. This is far beyond the intended scope of the spell and makes it better than a higher level spell in most situations.
Reincarnate accomplishes this albeit with a longer casting time and a small waiting period. It is also a spell level lower. And costs less than a Raise Dead spell which can't bring back a disintegrated target.
Reincarnate is a 4th level spell that by all means is better than Raise Dead AND Resurrection with a far less cost. You might say "Oh man but at what roleplaying cost", but honestly its just a cool roleplaying opportunity with the bonus of coming back to life.
Reincarnate is a 4th level spell that by all means is better than Raise Dead AND Resurrection with a far less cost. You might say "Oh man but at what roleplaying cost", but honestly its just a cool roleplaying opportunity with the bonus of coming back to life.
I don't think the disintegrated half-orc barbarian will agree with you after he is reincarnated as a gnome, loses two levels, loses a bunch of STR, is too small to wield his magical greataxe or wear his magical armor, and even after he replaces those, he finds he must forever do much less damage than he used to - this guy is VERY unlikely to agree that his Reincarnation is just "a cool roleplaying opportunity".
Reincarnate is a 4th level spell that by all means is better than Raise Dead AND Resurrection with a far less cost. You might say "Oh man but at what roleplaying cost", but honestly its just a cool roleplaying opportunity with the bonus of coming back to life.I don't think the disintegrated half-orc barbarian will agree with you after he is reincarnated as a gnome, loses two levels, loses a bunch of STR, is too small to wield his magical greataxe or wear his magical armor, and even after he replaces those, he finds he must forever do much less damage than he used to - this guy is VERY unlikely to agree that his Reincarnation is just "a cool roleplaying opportunity".
Or the mobility/finesse monk who ends up coming back as a dwarf.
Or the Suli who has a bunch of feats to enhance his natural Suli abilities who comes back as a tiefling and has 3-5 feats that no longer work.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reincarnate is a 4th level spell that by all means is better than Raise Dead AND Resurrection with a far less cost. You might say "Oh man but at what roleplaying cost", but honestly its just a cool roleplaying opportunity with the bonus of coming back to life.
Please address the regenerate issue directly rather than throwing out a spell that comes from a different class and functions in a different way. The druid spell list differs from the cleric list both functionally and in terms of spell power per level.
Reincarnate is a 4th level spell that by all means is better than Raise Dead AND Resurrection with a far less cost. You might say "Oh man but at what roleplaying cost", but honestly its just a cool roleplaying opportunity with the bonus of coming back to life.Please address the regenerate issue directly rather than throw out a spell that comes from a different class and functions in a different way. The druid spell list differs from the cleric list both functionally and in terms of spell power per level.
So we should just ignore that Druids have a more powerful resurrection spell? That comes at less material cost? And not consider it at all when considering what is and isn't within the purview of the general power of spell levels?
Because thats how we balance damage spells. We base it off of the Wizard spell list.
Regeneration really doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. If you had focused on Resurrection then we could discuss it.
About the Barbarian. He loses 2 points of damage from his STR being lowered. Approximately -1 point of damage for the weapon downsize. So three points of damage. And a -1 to hit. In exchange he totally gets something to rage about, he gets a bonus to AC, a bonus to perception, can be incredibly sneaky, and gets a bonus against a pesky will save.
He could also get turned into a Bugbear or an actual Orc which could just up his combat ability.
I have no sympathy for people who invest in racial feats. I personally find them to be distasteful especially when they can be used to optimize a character. Also look into Retraining.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we should just ignore that Druids have a more powerful resurrection spell?
Yes. We are talking about BoL which is cleric spell. Please compare it to other cleric spells in terms of power and functionality.
Regenerate is relevant because some are claiming BoL can restore missing parts.
Because it doesn't need the information because Dead provides it for it.
No. It doesn't.
"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."
Depending on the spell or device. Say it. Say it again. There is dependency. Not a uniform "this does X all the time". It depends on the spell. Or device. But again, it depends on the spell. Some spells do, some spells don't. Because it depends - Paizo's word, not mine - on the spell.
I depend on oxygen to stay alive. Take it away and I die. Body repairs depend on the text in the spell description. Take it away and they don't repair bodies.
(And now the crux of my argument, here it says we no longer need to worry about the conditions of the body when applying magic that brings back the dead, I take this to mean obviously having a body of dust would be worrysome to the PC, so his body is reconstructed with the dust being a blueprint for his body for the magic.)
My thoughts in parentheses.
Alas, the bit you chose to ignore which is a parenthetical clarification moots ALL of that. Recovery from death does X, depending on the spell involved. breath of life is very clear about what it does for a body; it repairs some hit point damage. Maybe - just maybe - enough that your death isn't permanent. That's it. That's all. The spell spells out what it does. Just like it's supposed to according to the Dead condition. Just like all the bring-you-back spells do.
You can ignore the text that tells you body repair depends on the spell, but that'd be a house-rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I answered this several pages back, and I don't think I was the first one, but here it is for reference since it seems to have been lost in the debate-go-round:
Link: A dead-creature CAN be BOTH an object AND a dead-creature AT THE SAME TIME.
In fact, a dead-creature IS both things at the same time. Saying "Nuh uh, it's an object now so it isn't a dead-creature anymore" is just plain silly. It's semantically wrong, mechanically wrong, and as my linked post shows, there are plenty of similar game mechanics where an object is simultaneously an object and something else too.
Yes, agreed, I'm not refuting that at all. But that people even tried to made that argument - that Raise Dead/BoL/Ressurection does not work at all because "by RAAAAW" while ignoring the very obvious intent of the rules, made the discussion go very bad.
And it's not just that either, the same is true for the whole thing about the dust being your body - it is VERY OBVIOUSLY not the intent that disintegrates line about reducing the target to dust is meant to do NOTHING; if there was no difference between a pile of dust and a corpse that line would be pointless. This is a case where the RAI is so obvious that trying to argue an opposing RAW is just abusing the rules, in the very same way as the "you can act while dead" argument.
Xenrac I read your post now, and it brings some well thought out arguments to light. I also accept a great deal of what your saying.
The reason *why* the pro life (lol) side quotes that page so much is because undoubtedly,
Breath of Life restores a dead character to life right? Then we step forward and apply the rest of the passage to it. We see the next part as a general rule we can apply in the gaps. There aren't alot of other case with which we can draw on to deduce an exact ruling.
Do we not consider Breath of Life as magic that restores a dead character to life?
Or are we in disagreement over whether that passage is a general rule or not?
As for the spell levels, I don't believe that we should balance them clearly on what else is in that class's spell list. I think when balancing the full casters we should consider them all together as one. The druid has far more offensive capabilities so I feel the Cleric should have some extra umph in the healing department and versatility of that field.
|
I don't hit the faq because i am pretty sure Breath of Life is called Cure Deadly Wounds, and in my games (even Pathfinder Society) it's just a healing spell that could heal hp damage that causes death and if hit point total goes above death threshold before the times up, it can restore life. Any other form of death beyond hp damage is beyond the spell purpose.
If someone publish a faq saying otherwise, i will consider it rules revision and accept it, but i am really sure i am right.
I think that Reincarnate's incredibly risky outcome even when it WORKS is far more severe than you're giving it credit for.
Breath of Life is a spell that CAN bring a creature back to life, if it meets all the criteria.
Because so much of this depends on the general rule, let's back up and look at it differently. What do you need to come back to life? Body, soul, magic spell. The soul can be denied by its owner or by being a ghost, etc. BoL is a magic spell. Do we have a body? Resurrection provides one if you only have pieces. Reincarnate makes you a new one. Raise Dead doesn't. BoL doesn't say.
The cleric does have oomph in that field - he's the one who has RD, BoL, Resurrection and TR. Besides, I'm not worried about other class's spells, I'm worried about how his OWN spells compare in power.
What if a wizard had a spell that did 1d4 / level, max 10d4, and could be used in a 5-ft line, but only on the wizard's first turn of combat, as a level 1 spell? Would you not compare it to Burning Hands?
Yes, but such a spell would also have logical uses behind it too. Such a spell would be quite the godsend for a wizard worried about clipping his allies with Burning Hands eh?
A wizard can replicate the effects of True Resurrection for 1,500 gold (A paltry sum at that level) more and a second spell of 7th level. Ive never known the 10 years per caster level limiting line to ever come into effect.
By the time you get RD, you start facing effects you can't fix. RD itself takes an additional two weeks in game time to get rid of it's bad effects.
I considered Breath of Life to be the Cleric's truly valuable unique spell that allows them to get around these hefty penalties or special circumstances.
If someone fires a bunch of arrows into a corpse, doing 70 points of damage, the body is too badly damaged for a single casting of Breath of Life to bring them back. It seems logical to me that being reduced to dust is worse than having six arrows in you.
If someone fires a bunch of arrows into a corpse, doing 70 points of damage, the body is too badly damaged for a single casting of Breath of Life to bring them back. It seems logical to me that being reduced to dust is worse than having six arrows in you.
If they have more than 20 con and the Breath of Life rolls extremely well it could save it. An Empowered Breath of Life could do even better as well.
Its the only spell of which the Cleric gets an opportunity to subvert death when it occurs.
Other spells are dedicated towards fixing it after the fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its the only spell of which the Cleric gets an opportunity to subvert death when it occurs.
You keep saying this like it matters.
It's like you're going through the five stages of grief (for a spell that doesn't work the way you want it to).
You started off with denial. Then anger.
Now you're at bargaining.
Here's hoping you move on to acceptance soon.
Its the only spell of which the Cleric gets an opportunity to subvert death when it occurs.You keep saying this like it matters.
It's like you're going through the five stages of grief (for a spell that doesn't work the way you want it to).
You started off with denial. Then anger.
Now you're at bargaining.
Here's hoping you move on to acceptance soon.
Ive made my arguments. Now I'm talking about overall gameplay balance how it, in the end, doesn't make too much of a difference allowing the cleric this function.
Party member is disintegrate at level 9. If the ruling is against, hes dead as a door nail forever till someone wants to chock up the 11,000 gp to have a Resurrection spell cast on him. Which is a 4th of a character's total wealth at 9th level. Then he gets a negative level which is another 1000 gp to get rid of while also making him incapable of healing another negative level for a week of game time. After all that hes fully functioning again! After the party has searched for a potential healer to cast a spell and quite possibly have gained exp in the mean time. Dealing with people leveling at different times is a pain. But also the party is underequipped now. Now the DM has to wiggle some treasure in now. Oh but whats that? The Party didn't have 11,000 gp worth of liquid wealth to throw around? That means they sold gear to make this happen. Which means the party is down 22,000 gp.
Or this can be avoided with the ruling for.
Ive heard taking what control players have of their characters is a no no. Nothing stings more than losing your character to a save or die.
What if my eyes were put out years before I was Disintegrated? Which form of restoration would I get? Full health or time of death? Why? It says depending on the spell, and the spell doesn't say.
Time of death I suppose. Your body would be as it was before becoming dust.
The way I see it is breath of life generally restores the body to the moment before death.
What if my eyes were put out years before I was Disintegrated? Which form of restoration would I get? Full health or time of death? Why? It says depending on the spell, and the spell doesn't say.Time of death I suppose. Your body would be as it was before becoming dust.
The way I see it is breath of life generally restores the body to the moment before death.
So if they were unwounded prior to death (one kill crit shot, from 50HP to -25 hp), then BoL would restore them to the state they were in before dying, full health?
See what happens when you try to read in things the spell doesn't say? Which is it?
Reincarnate is a 4th level spell that by all means is better than Raise Dead AND Resurrection with a far less cost. You might say "Oh man but at what roleplaying cost", but honestly its just a cool roleplaying opportunity with the bonus of coming back to life.I don't think the disintegrated half-orc barbarian will agree with you after he is reincarnated as a gnome, loses two levels, loses a bunch of STR, is too small to wield his magical greataxe or wear his magical armor, and even after he replaces those, he finds he must forever do much less damage than he used to - this guy is VERY unlikely to agree that his Reincarnation is just "a cool roleplaying opportunity".
I'd find this fun to roleplay, and would be quite eager to get reincarnated again to see what happens next time.
Xenrac,
Breath of Life also has a shorter time limit than any of the Raise Spells. Consider the drastic reduction of 1 day per caster level to a single round regardless of the power of the caster. That doesn't warrant any increase in power? As for the negative levels, I consider those to be the rigors of having to bring the soul back from the afterlife whereas Breath of Life can manage to catch it before it leaves.
Though I'm glad we agree on that Reincarnate is kinda crazy strong. And I appreciate the apology. Your side is very convincing and I almost gave up after you broke it down in the post before this one. If we had a restore or raise key word that would be clear things up magnificently. I just feel that the Cleric could use this both to player's and the DM's benefit. I dislike having to arbitrarily fit in 22,000 gp worth of gold in a rather easy encounter to get the party back up to snuff and minimizing on downtime to keep adventures flowing keeps the players happy.
I played in a game where my character had been disintegrated. Immediately afterward another character died, then another, then we hit a point where our party was so hamstringed and we only played for 2 more sessions before the game dissolved. A great problem occurs when a character dies in a dungeon and there aren't readily available means of getting another character/rezzing. With that party there was only one remaining member of the original party we began the campaign with and we started from level 1. We were 12 level at the time. A lack of character motivation thereafter ended the game.
I'm a DM, I don't need SoD spells to threaten the party.
We've even instituted a rule recently. If the party unanimously agrees to flee, they will automatically succeed at fleeing. There will be a cost to fleeing, but they'll live. They've been lucky so far, I have encounters designed for when they're more powerful and they've been close to them but haven't run into them yet. If they do find them, I'm not going to hold back though.
This is what makes DMing tough. How can you threaten your players without a TPK? It's one thing if it's their own fault, but SoD spells are in the hands of Rolland the Random Number God.
My policy is usually one of escalation. I try not to drastically exceed the ruthlessness the players do; so if they're mostly using full attacks and damage spells, I won't have the enemies using Phantasmal Killer on them. If they kick their strategy up Ito SoLs, combat maneuvers and shutdowns, I'll try to match them with more deadly things.
Thats the thing, is eventually you have to open up with the most deadly things creatures have available. Heck the tactics for most Balors is to open up with Implosion. If not the players tend to go full offense and eviscerate whatever is in front of them.
Am I misinterpreting or have we finally arrived at "RAW, breath of life won't bring you back?" Just curious. Now we're arguing over balance and the question of "should it", right?
Im at the stage of agree to disagree and I hope there will be an FAQ on the matter.
Im at the stage of agree to disagree and I hope there will be an FAQ on the matter.
Can you be convinced to reply to my previous response then? I'm interested in knowing how it doesn't pretty much put this to bed.
Divine Intervention tends to be the coolest intervention and Clerics are their walking versions of it heh.
As ciretose said, I'll nod and go "cool" with it too.
If this was something the Cleric could do on the fly I could see it very easily ruled against me, but as it stands Breath of Life is NOT Cure Deadly Wounds...though I wish it was really because that would give Clerics quite the niche over Oracles as healers though they'd just likely select Breath of Life as one of their spells. I absolutely despise how they effectively get the best out of channeling. Simply coming out and saying it was Cure Deadly Wounds would put quite a bit to rest as well as Cure spells don't have it within their purview to reconstruct though spells that bring back the dead do.
Now Raging because if Breath of Life was changed to Cure Deadly, Oracles would get it automatically anyways. @_@
Maybe Domain Spontaneity from 3.5? I loved that feat.
I've seen it run both ways. Neither bothered me.
Dropping all argumentation for the nonce, neither way it's run bothers me, exactly.
I'm just saying I'm nearly 100% certain it does not work the way people want to make it work.
Run it however you like, as will I. I may even run it the less limited way, depending on the circumstance, since I really don't like to kill players unless they deserve it/do something stupid (and IMO, rolling low on your Fort save is neither of those).
I just really don't think the "Cure X Wounds that works on newly dead people" spell should make Resurrection look undesirable.