| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 May 2021 : 05:58:27
Okay, so as I've said before, I gave up on Lord Ginsu after reading the Thousand Orcs books. With the exception of the one book of the Sundering series RAS wrote, I've not touched anything by him since.
I'm not planning on reading that new one that's coming out, but I've seen that the synopsis references Jarlaxle (a character I really dig) trying to help his buddy Zaknafein.
The last time I saw Zaknafein in one of the Lord Ginsu books, he was dying for the second time.
So... Keeping in mind that I'm not going to read any more books about Drizzt (so please don't suggest it), can someone enlighten me as to how Zaknafein is alive and kicking again? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Azar |
Posted - 15 Feb 2022 : 00:37:06
She would have fit right in when monsters were monsters. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 22:45:09
I was actually happy the Companions returned (wasn't a fan of Dahlia), but I stopped reading after Relentlesa. The Generations trilogy negated Hero for me, and interviews I have seen with RAS have kind of soured me towards him. The irony of the "Christian" Entreri is that RAS doesn't miss a chance to make the gods look bad, and he's tweeted things about real world religion, too. Now, as an non-Catholic, I am sure his feelings on the matter are complicated, and I don't care what his real world religious beliefs or non beliefs are, but he has really been projecting it in the last several books (Mielikki supporting genocide, Lolth being an "infection").
So I was happy with the return of Zak and the Companions, but after the Generations trilogy, and learning about the "new" civilization of drow, while ignoring Eilistraeens and Vhaeraunites (Eilistraee in particular. Her followers have long laid the foundation for the goodly drow)... |
| Captain Grafalcon |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 15:59:25
With the neverwinter series, I thought the Legend of Drizzt could start a more robust phase. New partners, which had different alignments than those of the Companions,brought a little freshness to the reading. "I wonder what Drizzt will do now or react with a group of chaotic adventurers??"Dhalia was a very interesting character in the beginning. Unfortunately, the plot and characters on the next books have gone through a pasteurization that takes away all emotion... Yvonnel II, the "redeemed Christian" Entreri, a collection of gods and mortals who conspire in Drizzt's favor.
I will continue to read the next books because I appreciate the author's writing style, but a little disheartened by the direction of the story.
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 13:24:08
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
[quote]Originally posted by LordofBones
I'm pretty sure one of his katanas could easily bisect a Purple Dragon Knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
And still slice through a Maztican tomato without tearing its skin? |
| Azar |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 00:04:51
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
Personally, I was quite happy with Zak's return at the end of Hero, but I wish the series had also ended there. It was a good place to leave off.
Them teats be big and tempting. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 13 Feb 2022 : 22:53:53
[quote]Originally posted by Demzer
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.
quote]
Yeah, most people would come back if they felt they had unfinished business. Fflar Starbrow, for example, was in Arvandor (the pull of which is very strong for elves), came back because he felt there were things he had left to do (iirc).
We have not been told (unless it's been revealed in the latest book) where Zak's soul was, but it was heavily implied that Lolth didn't have him, and throughout the series, there were references to him being in a "good place". Of course, given the recent trajectory of the latest novels, he may not have been with a god at all.
Personally, I was quite happy with Zak's return at the end of Hero, but I wish the series had also ended there. It was a good place to leave off. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Feb 2022 : 11:24:14
 |
| Scots Dragon |
Posted - 08 Feb 2022 : 10:53:20
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Man, I really want to read the Adventures of Lord Ginsu, Kara-Tur noble by day and insane blender of mass destruction by night, dual-wielding his trusty forged-by-superior-kara-tur-blacksmiths katana while laughing maniacally the entire time.
His blades were folded a million times using superior Kozakuran steel to produce the finest blades known to elfkind, and purchased for the equivalent of 20,000 gold pieces. He can even cut slabs of solid steel with his katanas.
They are thrice as sharp as Faerūnian swords, and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, his katanas can cut through better. I'm pretty sure one of his katanas could easily bisect a Purple Dragon Knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why Faerūn never bothered conquering Kara-Tur? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Lord Ginsu and his katanas of destruction.
I am so sorry. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 07 Feb 2022 : 14:21:04
Man, I really want to read the Adventures of Lord Ginsu, Kara-Tur noble by day and insane blender of mass destruction by night, dual-wielding his trusty forged-by-superior-kara-tur-blacksmiths katana while laughing maniacally the entire time. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Feb 2022 : 14:02:13
quote:
Originally posted by Scars Unseen
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
The first three novels (Homecoming, Exile and Sojourn) aren't bad.
Technically those aren't the first three. Chronologically, they happen first, but the Icewind Dale Trilogy was published first.
And then Drizzt's age was retconned in later publishings of The Crystal Shard, because of the Dark Elf trilogy.
Originally, The Crystal Shard referred to Drizzt having lived underground for "more than two centuries." But then the Dark Elf books spanned something like 70 years, so his age wound up getting revised downward. |
| Scars Unseen |
Posted - 05 Feb 2022 : 07:07:45
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
quote:
Originally posted by NoelWeber
I have not read yet something of Lord Ginsu books, but I have heard about them and also my elder sister advised to try them.
The first three novels (Homecoming, Exile and Sojourn) aren't bad.
Technically those aren't the first three. Chronologically, they happen first, but the Icewind Dale Trilogy was published first. |
| Azar |
Posted - 05 Feb 2022 : 01:42:45
quote:
Originally posted by NoelWeber
I have not read yet something of Lord Ginsu books, but I have heard about them and also my elder sister advised to try them.
The first three novels (Homecoming, Exile and Sojourn) aren't bad. |
| NoelWeber |
Posted - 04 Feb 2022 : 16:33:09
I have not read yet something of Lord Ginsu books, but I have heard about them and also my elder sister advised me to try them. I prefer "The Crystal Shard". On https://freebooksummary.com/category/dreams-from-my-father I have found details about it. I like the most the first part of the book which introduces the cold land of Icewind Dale, the Ten-Towns, and the main characters: the drow ranger Drizzt Do'Urden, who has chosen to live in the surface world instead of in the evil and ruthless Underdark. Also, I like to read about them in any free book summary. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 11 Jun 2021 : 15:29:51
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
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.
Elves have been known to be resurrected (Fflar), but maybe it's the whole spirit vs soul thing, and the pull of Arvandor is quite strong.
Note that - in 2e - resurrection works just fine on elves. A Priest barely able to cast raise dead can't return an elf, but they can try again in four levels once they learn that Level 7 spell. Granted, it could take years or even decades to reach that specific accomplishment, but the timespan resurrection can reach back into improves by decades per level. Also, they can attempt to cast resurrection from a scroll (the chance of failure is fairly low) or simply find a higher level Priest receptive to their request.
Or a rod of resurrection. My group actually had one of those because we had one guy that just seem to get unlucky and die all the time. He eventually got a ring of regeneration and that would bring him back, too. |
| Azar |
Posted - 11 Jun 2021 : 02:50:35
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
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.
Elves have been known to be resurrected (Fflar), but maybe it's the whole spirit vs soul thing, and the pull of Arvandor is quite strong.
Note that - in 2e - resurrection works just fine on elves. A Priest barely able to cast raise dead can't return an elf, but they can try again in four levels once they learn that Level 7 spell. Granted, it could take years or even decades to reach that specific accomplishment, but the timespan resurrection can reach back into improves by decades per level. Also, they can attempt to cast resurrection from a scroll (the chance of failure is fairly low) or simply find a higher level Priest receptive to their request. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 11 Jun 2021 : 01:32:43
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
On an alternative storyline, I would have laughed if the Companions were reincarnated as cute fluffy animals and Drizzt were hungry.
To quote the writings of a very wise man: "Strangely enough, the only thought the potted plant had was 'Not again.'"
The wise man being Douglas Adams?
Of course!  |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 11 Jun 2021 : 00:39:02
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
On an alternative storyline, I would have laughed if the Companions were reincarnated as cute fluffy animals and Drizzt were hungry.
To quote the writings of a very wise man: "Strangely enough, the only thought the potted plant had was 'Not again.'"
The wise man being Douglas Adams? |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 11 Jun 2021 : 00:35:20
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
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.
Elves have been known to be resurrected (Fflar), but maybe it's the whole spirit vs soul thing, and the pull of Arvandor is quite strong.
|
| TBeholder |
Posted - 10 Jun 2021 : 20:39:56
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-I feel like all the Drizzt stuff kind of jumped the shark after the The Neverwinter books. Mind you, I didn't read them but things seem internally consistent and consistent with the rest of the world. Starting with the Sundering books, he has to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to include older characters in his books, and then in the subsequent series', everything seems to be way out there.
And from some point it appears to became a hated chore. See also: Bruce Cordell...
quote:
Originally posted by HighOne
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.
PO:S&M introduced a general purpose hybrid spell-point system.
But also, Channeler as a specific type of a wizard, doing pretty much what Sorcerers do, but without "cuteness is magic" thing with Wis (as in /Willpower) and Con as governing stats and fatigue, so it actually made sense. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 10 Jun 2021 : 14:29:00
quote:
Originally posted by HighOne
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.
The wizard in 5e also replicates it, in that they can change what spells they have memorized now and use them however they like as far as slots whenever they cast. The sorcerer however is tied to what spells they know and can't change them daily, but they have the same number of slots. I didn't realize this until I looked at the system more, but it is something where the concept of sorcerers is good, but there needs to be some flexibility with sorcery points that just don't exist. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 10 Jun 2021 : 14:19:31
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
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.
You and me both... that's why I brought this up. They're a little stringent right now. Some of that is because they assign concentration when its not necessarily needed, which comes back to spell design. I would rather they allow people to put on defenses that try to not die, rather than just "well, if you die, its easy to revive". |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 10 Jun 2021 : 03:08:06
quote:
Originally posted by HighOne
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.
I thought the same when I first picked up PO:SM but when I looked at it, there is a slight difference. You spend spell points to MEMORIZE a spell or you can just have free floating points to cast any spell you have in your spellbook at a higher cost. The system we had was that you could spend your spell points to CAST any spell you had memorized. If it wasn't memorized, you couldn't cast it. Plus they had stuff like spending more points to increase damage, range, etc and we didn't have that. That would have been nice to have but it didn't occur to us.
I just took a look at edition release dates and I realized that we were using 1e then since this was in the early to mid '80s. 2e didn't come out until 1989 so it was actually a pre-2e system. That also made it a pre-FR game for that group (we were all out of college and gone our separate ways by the time the OGB came out). Hard to believe that was 36 years ago. |
| HighOne |
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. |
| TheIriaeban |
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. |
| Azar |
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. |
| sleyvas |
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. |
| TheIriaeban |
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. |
| sleyvas |
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. |
| Eldacar |
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. |
| Azar |
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. |
|
|
