As Lunali said, but in more specific game terms, its a domain spell for life and grave domain clerics. Why would you not have the ability to use it? Outside of not having the material component.
Revivify can only be cast on someone that died in the last minute. You do not know when someone will die, so the only reasonable choice for a Grave or Life cleric is to ALWAYS memorize it.
This compares with Raise Dead that has a 10 day limit for how long you can cast it. So you don't need to have it as a Domain spell.
Aren't grave clerics about upholding the natural order of life and death? They ease the pain of the dying and can stave off a creature's death, but they refuse to extend a creature's lifespan. That's what the description says, yet they have a domain spell that lets them undo death? Shouldn't they accept that if a creature falls in battle, their time has come and that they can now rest? Why do they get a domain spell to oppose that very basic belief of theirs?
Aren't grave clerics about upholding the natural order of life and death? They ease the pain of the dying and can stave off a creature's death, but they refuse to extend a creature's lifespan. That's what the description says, yet they have a domain spell that lets them undo death? Shouldn't they accept that if a creature falls in battle, their time has come and that they can now rest? Why do they get a domain spell to oppose that very basic belief of theirs?
Where does it say they refuse to extend a creature's lifespan? My copy of XGtEsays the exact opposite
Followers of these deities seek to put wandering spirits to rest, destroy the undead, and ease the suffering of the dying. Their magic also allows them to stave off death for a time, particularly for a person who still has some great work to accomplish in the world. This is a delay of death, not a denial of it, for death will eventually get its due.
Whoops, my bad. I was reading it on a different page where the text is slightly different. I thought it'd be the same. I took another look at the other domain spells, and a lot of them are necromancy. Though they deal with life and death, I'd honestly prefer my grave cleric to view death as a sacred part of the cycle of life, and while they might delay death using healing, I feel like they shouldn't strive to undo it. So if their friend would die, they would accept that their friend's fate has come to an end, and any necromancy to raise or resurrect them would go against their code. That's just my character idea though.
Whoops, my bad. I was reading it on a different page where the text is slightly different. I thought it'd be the same. I took another look at the other domain spells, and a lot of them are necromancy. Though they deal with life and death, I'd honestly prefer a grave cleric to view death as a sacred part of the cycle of life, and while they might delay death using healing, I feel like they shouldn't strive to undo it. So if their friend would die, they would accept that their friend's fate has come to an end, and any necromancy to raise or resurrect them would go against their code. That's just my opinion though.
I view Revivify as CPR. Sure, they're not breathing, and their heart is stopped, but in that first minute they're not fully dead, they only truely die when the soul leaves for the afterlife.
Revivify is not really undoing death. All it's really doing is basically saying "No, You can't die yet. You still have things to do." it doesn't somehow make them immortal or bring them back from dieing in most natural fashions. which could be argued the only true time of death. All violent Deaths can be viewed as life cut short, not life serving their prescribed time. Because without that violence they wouldn't have usually have just fell over and died at that time. That's actually somebody purposefully interceding and cutting their life short. All a spell like Revivify and Raise dead do is bring back somebody that hasn't had their natural death yet and brings them back so that they can complete some important task. There's a lot of things that these spells do not undo. Something like Age or Missing Body Parts have their limits. Diseases if they killed a person would just kill a person rivivified again. Even Raise Dead can only undo a few of these things.
First of all, a dead person is dead. If a spell talks about a creature having died and bringing them back to life, that counts as undoing death. However, all of this really depends on the belief of the cleric, and whether they believe in fate or a divine plan. If they believe in fate, then a person being killed means that their end has come and that they are not to interfere with that. Maybe they believe that the gods have a plan for all mortal life and that if someone dies, the gods have either deemed them worthy to join them in heaven for example, or they are deemed unworthy and are cast into hell to suffer for their sins. What gives the mortal cleric the right to interfere with divine judgement? In the end, it comes down to how you want to play and what you want your character to believe in. This is definitely the way I would play a grave cleric, and I would talk with my DM about replacing the resurrection domain spells. I don't care if my party cries about the possibility to die. That possibility is omnipresent anyway.
First of all, a dead person is dead. If a spell talks about a creature having died and bringing them back to life, that counts as undoing death. However, all of this really depends on the belief of the cleric, and whether they believe in fate or a divine plan. If they believe in fate, then a person being killed means that their end has come and that they are not to interfere with that. Maybe they believe that the gods have a plan for all mortal life and that if someone dies, the gods have either deemed them worthy to join them in heaven for example, or they are deemed unworthy and are cast into hell to suffer for their sins. What gives the mortal cleric the right to interfere with divine judgement? In the end, it comes down to how you want to play and what you want your character to believe in. This is definitely the way I would play a grave cleric, and I would talk with my DM about replacing the resurrection domain spells. I don't care if my party cries about the possibility to die. That possibility is omnipresent anyway.
This is a very rigid and somewhat close minded look at things.
I can use the same exact logic and say that if the Divine Being actually gives you a spell that can bring a person back to life and it is successful that it is entirely the Gods Will that they are not done in life and thus it is not in any way the Cleric interfering with Your so called Fate and Divine Plan of them dying. The Cleric is merely an instrument of the Gods Will. Who are you to interfere with the Gods Divine Will and not bring them back considering it is the Divine Power of the Gods Bringing them back and it's the gods Divine Judgement that they should be ack on earth and continueing whatever tasks they have to perform there.
This is your same rigid opinion on it simply turned to the other side. both sides are missing a lot and are very narrowly focused and don't really get the point. Nor are they are in any way omnipresent. They are entirely selfish and Treat the cleric rather poorly overall and doesn't actually have anything to do with how you want to play your character. It's a smoke screen excuse why you can't play your character in any other way at best. "Sorry. My God Won't Let Me so I'm not going to try."
Are you trying to tell me that this concept of a character I have is somehow wrong? I am going to repeat myself: This all depends on how you want to play your character, and what kind of person you want them to be. Not all religious models and concepts are perfectly morally acceptable by every person in existence. If a cleric doesn't take any healing spells, is that person playing their class wrong because they choose not to take certain spells that they can take? Is that tempest cleric a bad player because they don't take revivify? Yes, I know that mentality and belief I described are close-minded, but that was the point. Not every character is a perfect person. Not every character is a good person, but choosing not to cast some spells does not make them an evil person, nor does it make me a bad player. Yes, you can reverse the logic of my concept. You did so quite easily, and if that is how you want to play your cleric, please, by all means, go ahead. I take no issue with players wanting to play certain classes in a specific and maybe unorthodox way. In 5e half of the cleric subclasses grant them heavy armor and want them to be front-liners, but what if I want to play a backline life cleric who is a priest? Would I be playing my character wrong again?
Are you trying to tell me that this concept of a character I have is somehow wrong? I am going to repeat myself: This all depends on how you want to play your character, and what kind of person you want them to be. Not all religious models and concepts are perfectly morally acceptable by every person in existence. If a cleric doesn't take any healing spells, is that person playing their class wrong because they choose not to take certain spells that they can take? Is that tempest cleric a bad player because they don't take revivify? Yes, I know that mentality and belief I described are close-minded, but that was the point. Not every character is a perfect person. Not every character is a good person, but choosing not to cast some spells does not make them an evil person, nor does it make me a bad player. Yes, you can reverse the logic of my concept. You did so quite easily, and if that is how you want to play your cleric, please, by all means, go ahead. I take no issue with players wanting to play certain classes in a specific and maybe unorthodox way. In 5e half of the cleric subclasses grant them heavy armor and want them to be front-liners, but what if I want to play a backline life cleric who is a priest? Would I be playing my character wrong again?
Choosing or not choosing to cast certain spells could actually make you evil. It's all based on the situation.
But I'm just not going to bother to get into that.
There is also nothing about 5e thta says heavy armor must be a front liner. That is a narrow assumption your forcing on that description to claim "would I be playing it wrong" as a self defense. Many people don't play life clerics that way. Or even many Heavy Armor Clerics that way as I'm sure you probably know.
This defense of "it's how I play my character shouldn't be wrong because i don't match what you said" is a smoke screen and doesn't actually address the issue that You've actually tried to fundamentally claim that it is wrong for all Grave Clerics and other Clerics that have some focus in somebody dying should not ever cast things like Revivify and should not have it available on their Domain Lists to the point of claiming you'd force a DM to take them off and replace them for you.
We've given you a variety of reason why they are fitting. We've even shown how the exact same mentality can be used to justify them existing.
Excuse me what the ****. In all of my comments, I reiterate that this is how I would want to play my grave cleric, which you obviously have a problem with. Never did I claim that all clerics should disregard spells like Revivify, or even that all grave clerics should regard them. Where are you pulling that idea from? All the clerics who get heavy armor proficiency also get Divine Strike, a feature that increases melee damage. I know you can change that using Tasha's, but that wasn't always the case, so by default, these clerics are supposed to be played in melee range. It is of course still up to the player, whether they want to play their cleric that way. Which is my complete point. I am sharing my personal character idea here and a possible reason why a grave cleric would not use resurrection magic, and you are trying to tell me I am telling people how to play their own grave cleric? Sorry, but that's stupid. I also never said I would force my DM to let me exchange those spells. I would ask my DM and discuss the character concept with them, and if they don't like it, I can play a different character. I am so confused where you are pulling all these accusations from... Also, please explain to me why choosing not to cast certain spells due to in-character beliefs and values that aren't evil...can make me evil. You are portraying me like I was going to play a bladesinger with 8 INT, 8 DEX, and 8 CON, and say that it's a good character concept. It is obviously not, so unless you are going to complain further about disliking my character idea and how roleplay is a smokescreen, please...stay quiet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
why is it one of the always prepared spells even when you don’t have the ability to use it?
Assuming you're talking about grave or life domain: Because it's a spell that is core to the tenets you hold dear.
because you never know when you will need it,so best to have it and not need it,then need it but not have it.
As Lunali said, but in more specific game terms, its a domain spell for life and grave domain clerics. Why would you not have the ability to use it? Outside of not having the material component.
Revivify can only be cast on someone that died in the last minute. You do not know when someone will die, so the only reasonable choice for a Grave or Life cleric is to ALWAYS memorize it.
This compares with Raise Dead that has a 10 day limit for how long you can cast it. So you don't need to have it as a Domain spell.
Aren't grave clerics about upholding the natural order of life and death? They ease the pain of the dying and can stave off a creature's death, but they refuse to extend a creature's lifespan. That's what the description says, yet they have a domain spell that lets them undo death? Shouldn't they accept that if a creature falls in battle, their time has come and that they can now rest? Why do they get a domain spell to oppose that very basic belief of theirs?
Where does it say they refuse to extend a creature's lifespan? My copy of XGtEsays the exact opposite
Whoops, my bad. I was reading it on a different page where the text is slightly different. I thought it'd be the same. I took another look at the other domain spells, and a lot of them are necromancy. Though they deal with life and death, I'd honestly prefer my grave cleric to view death as a sacred part of the cycle of life, and while they might delay death using healing, I feel like they shouldn't strive to undo it. So if their friend would die, they would accept that their friend's fate has come to an end, and any necromancy to raise or resurrect them would go against their code. That's just my character idea though.
I view Revivify as CPR. Sure, they're not breathing, and their heart is stopped, but in that first minute they're not fully dead, they only truely die when the soul leaves for the afterlife.
Revivify is not really undoing death. All it's really doing is basically saying "No, You can't die yet. You still have things to do." it doesn't somehow make them immortal or bring them back from dieing in most natural fashions. which could be argued the only true time of death. All violent Deaths can be viewed as life cut short, not life serving their prescribed time. Because without that violence they wouldn't have usually have just fell over and died at that time. That's actually somebody purposefully interceding and cutting their life short. All a spell like Revivify and Raise dead do is bring back somebody that hasn't had their natural death yet and brings them back so that they can complete some important task. There's a lot of things that these spells do not undo. Something like Age or Missing Body Parts have their limits. Diseases if they killed a person would just kill a person rivivified again. Even Raise Dead can only undo a few of these things.
First of all, a dead person is dead. If a spell talks about a creature having died and bringing them back to life, that counts as undoing death. However, all of this really depends on the belief of the cleric, and whether they believe in fate or a divine plan. If they believe in fate, then a person being killed means that their end has come and that they are not to interfere with that. Maybe they believe that the gods have a plan for all mortal life and that if someone dies, the gods have either deemed them worthy to join them in heaven for example, or they are deemed unworthy and are cast into hell to suffer for their sins. What gives the mortal cleric the right to interfere with divine judgement? In the end, it comes down to how you want to play and what you want your character to believe in. This is definitely the way I would play a grave cleric, and I would talk with my DM about replacing the resurrection domain spells. I don't care if my party cries about the possibility to die. That possibility is omnipresent anyway.
This is a very rigid and somewhat close minded look at things.
I can use the same exact logic and say that if the Divine Being actually gives you a spell that can bring a person back to life and it is successful that it is entirely the Gods Will that they are not done in life and thus it is not in any way the Cleric interfering with Your so called Fate and Divine Plan of them dying. The Cleric is merely an instrument of the Gods Will. Who are you to interfere with the Gods Divine Will and not bring them back considering it is the Divine Power of the Gods Bringing them back and it's the gods Divine Judgement that they should be ack on earth and continueing whatever tasks they have to perform there.
This is your same rigid opinion on it simply turned to the other side. both sides are missing a lot and are very narrowly focused and don't really get the point. Nor are they are in any way omnipresent. They are entirely selfish and Treat the cleric rather poorly overall and doesn't actually have anything to do with how you want to play your character. It's a smoke screen excuse why you can't play your character in any other way at best. "Sorry. My God Won't Let Me so I'm not going to try."
Are you trying to tell me that this concept of a character I have is somehow wrong? I am going to repeat myself: This all depends on how you want to play your character, and what kind of person you want them to be. Not all religious models and concepts are perfectly morally acceptable by every person in existence. If a cleric doesn't take any healing spells, is that person playing their class wrong because they choose not to take certain spells that they can take? Is that tempest cleric a bad player because they don't take revivify? Yes, I know that mentality and belief I described are close-minded, but that was the point. Not every character is a perfect person. Not every character is a good person, but choosing not to cast some spells does not make them an evil person, nor does it make me a bad player. Yes, you can reverse the logic of my concept. You did so quite easily, and if that is how you want to play your cleric, please, by all means, go ahead. I take no issue with players wanting to play certain classes in a specific and maybe unorthodox way. In 5e half of the cleric subclasses grant them heavy armor and want them to be front-liners, but what if I want to play a backline life cleric who is a priest? Would I be playing my character wrong again?
Choosing or not choosing to cast certain spells could actually make you evil. It's all based on the situation.
But I'm just not going to bother to get into that.
There is also nothing about 5e thta says heavy armor must be a front liner. That is a narrow assumption your forcing on that description to claim "would I be playing it wrong" as a self defense. Many people don't play life clerics that way. Or even many Heavy Armor Clerics that way as I'm sure you probably know.
This defense of "it's how I play my character shouldn't be wrong because i don't match what you said" is a smoke screen and doesn't actually address the issue that You've actually tried to fundamentally claim that it is wrong for all Grave Clerics and other Clerics that have some focus in somebody dying should not ever cast things like Revivify and should not have it available on their Domain Lists to the point of claiming you'd force a DM to take them off and replace them for you.
We've given you a variety of reason why they are fitting. We've even shown how the exact same mentality can be used to justify them existing.
Excuse me what the ****. In all of my comments, I reiterate that this is how I would want to play my grave cleric, which you obviously have a problem with. Never did I claim that all clerics should disregard spells like Revivify, or even that all grave clerics should regard them. Where are you pulling that idea from? All the clerics who get heavy armor proficiency also get Divine Strike, a feature that increases melee damage. I know you can change that using Tasha's, but that wasn't always the case, so by default, these clerics are supposed to be played in melee range. It is of course still up to the player, whether they want to play their cleric that way. Which is my complete point. I am sharing my personal character idea here and a possible reason why a grave cleric would not use resurrection magic, and you are trying to tell me I am telling people how to play their own grave cleric? Sorry, but that's stupid. I also never said I would force my DM to let me exchange those spells. I would ask my DM and discuss the character concept with them, and if they don't like it, I can play a different character. I am so confused where you are pulling all these accusations from... Also, please explain to me why choosing not to cast certain spells due to in-character beliefs and values that aren't evil...can make me evil. You are portraying me like I was going to play a bladesinger with 8 INT, 8 DEX, and 8 CON, and say that it's a good character concept. It is obviously not, so unless you are going to complain further about disliking my character idea and how roleplay is a smokescreen, please...stay quiet.