A player in the party took the eye of a very strong neutral monster in the hopes of casting true resurrection on it. He also wants to cut the eye into 8ths and use the pieces to revive the creature after it dies to do it again. Is this allowed? Would the other eye parts go away. If you true resurrect a creature, does the prior body parts fade?
Well, it says that it closes wounds, and even creates an entirely new body if the original is destroyed. So I think whatever parts remain would be pulled into the new form... but honestly the wording is vague enough that it's entirely up to the DM.
Personally I would rule that it just creates a new body, so the eye bits they're keeping in a jar would still be there. However, I would also rule that those parts are no longer considered part of its "body", since now its "body" is the new one created by the spell, thus they just become inert chunks of flesh. But again, this all just depends on the DM's interpretation.
Either way, it seems like a whole lot of trouble to do something kind of silly that consumes 25,000 GP worth of diamonds every time you cast it.
Sounds like someone might be body harvesting for materials. This would be some grisly Necromancy, the kind that most beings would respond to with violence or fear. Only the most depraved character(s) would be a part of this kind of of dark cruelty. That said, might make for a GREAT story arc.
As long as you have part of the creature, you could keep bringing it back. Even though this spell pretty much makes a new body, you can't create clones, as their is only one sentient spirit tied to that body.
Personally I would rule that it just creates a new body, so the eye bits they're keeping in a jar would still be there. However, I would also rule that those parts are no longer considered part of its "body", since now its "body" is the new one created by the spell, thus they just become inert chunks of flesh. But again, this all just depends on the DM's interpretation.
Okay, so the rules as given by the spell are that it replaces missing organs/limbs if needed. If a whole new body is needed, you must speak the creature's name. My own interpretation would be:
* If the player knows the creature's name, this whole discussion is moot because they don't need any piece of the creature.
* If the player doesn't know the creature's name, whether or not a piece of an eye is sufficient depends on how far your DM is willing to stretch "replaces damaged or missing organs and limbs" as far as "regrow everything except part of one eye". Personally, I think it's pushing things a bit far.
* If part of the eye is enough to cast True Resurrection without knowing the creature's name, I would argue that the new body is what must be used to resurrect it if it dies again.
I mean, True Resurrection is 9th level, so I'd stretch it fairly far, but not far enough to create 8 clones of the creature from bits of the eye.
...Or if you attempt it on the second piece there's no soul to inhabit the body so it either fails or, possibly, creates some bizarre undead lich version of the creature that gives you a seriously bad day. :)
I mean, True Resurrection is 9th level, so I'd stretch it fairly far, but not far enough to create 8 clones of the creature from bits of the eye.
...Or if you attempt it on the second piece there's no soul to inhabit the body so it either fails or, possibly, creates some bizarre undead lich version of the creature that gives you a seriously bad day. :)
The spell would just fizzle because the creature is no longer dead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
By "other way" I meant having a True Resurrection spell cast in an unwise manner backfire and create a nasty undead lich-monster that immediately attacks the offending spellcaster and party. Which sounds like an epic surprise encounter to me. :)
I meant that, as a DM, if I had players trying to abuse true resurrection, it's something I'd totally do to them. They should be able to handle a big nasty fight if they're willing to blow 9th level spells on goofiness.
I mean, True Resurrection is 9th level, so I'd stretch it fairly far, but not far enough to create 8 clones of the creature from bits of the eye.
...Or if you attempt it on the second piece there's no soul to inhabit the body so it either fails or, possibly, creates some bizarre undead lich version of the creature that gives you a seriously bad day. :)
I could see that. It makes wasting a very powerful 9th level spell slot have real consequences. Also, I'm def getting Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood vibes from this. Love it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A player in the party took the eye of a very strong neutral monster in the hopes of casting true resurrection on it. He also wants to cut the eye into 8ths and use the pieces to revive the creature after it dies to do it again. Is this allowed? Would the other eye parts go away. If you true resurrect a creature, does the prior body parts fade?
Well, it says that it closes wounds, and even creates an entirely new body if the original is destroyed. So I think whatever parts remain would be pulled into the new form... but honestly the wording is vague enough that it's entirely up to the DM.
Personally I would rule that it just creates a new body, so the eye bits they're keeping in a jar would still be there. However, I would also rule that those parts are no longer considered part of its "body", since now its "body" is the new one created by the spell, thus they just become inert chunks of flesh. But again, this all just depends on the DM's interpretation.
Either way, it seems like a whole lot of trouble to do something kind of silly that consumes 25,000 GP worth of diamonds every time you cast it.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I'm pretty sure that original body parts aren't even needed for the spell to work. All you need is for the creature to want to come back.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Sounds like someone might be body harvesting for materials. This would be some grisly Necromancy, the kind that most beings would respond to with violence or fear. Only the most depraved character(s) would be a part of this kind of of dark cruelty. That said, might make for a GREAT story arc.
As long as you have part of the creature, you could keep bringing it back. Even though this spell pretty much makes a new body, you can't create clones, as their is only one sentient spirit tied to that body.
I would go with these 2 explanations.
Okay, so the rules as given by the spell are that it replaces missing organs/limbs if needed. If a whole new body is needed, you must speak the creature's name. My own interpretation would be:
* If the player knows the creature's name, this whole discussion is moot because they don't need any piece of the creature.
* If the player doesn't know the creature's name, whether or not a piece of an eye is sufficient depends on how far your DM is willing to stretch "replaces damaged or missing organs and limbs" as far as "regrow everything except part of one eye". Personally, I think it's pushing things a bit far.
* If part of the eye is enough to cast True Resurrection without knowing the creature's name, I would argue that the new body is what must be used to resurrect it if it dies again.
I mean, True Resurrection is 9th level, so I'd stretch it fairly far, but not far enough to create 8 clones of the creature from bits of the eye.
...Or if you attempt it on the second piece there's no soul to inhabit the body so it either fails or, possibly, creates some bizarre undead lich version of the creature that gives you a seriously bad day. :)
The spell would just fizzle because the creature is no longer dead.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yeah, officially. But the other way might be so much more FUN! :)
If by "fun" you mean completely unbalanced and a simulacrum spell without the limitations.
By "other way" I meant having a True Resurrection spell cast in an unwise manner backfire and create a nasty undead lich-monster that immediately attacks the offending spellcaster and party. Which sounds like an epic surprise encounter to me. :)
I meant that, as a DM, if I had players trying to abuse true resurrection, it's something I'd totally do to them. They should be able to handle a big nasty fight if they're willing to blow 9th level spells on goofiness.
I could see that. It makes wasting a very powerful 9th level spell slot have real consequences. Also, I'm def getting Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood vibes from this. Love it.