I have a DM that homebrew rules if performed on a dead player-character then it makes the "target" a Darakul - a ghoul - from the sourcebook of Book of Ebon Tides.

What do you all think of that? https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/boet/umbral-people-and-heroes#DarakhulTraits

That's...very much not what it does. And if your DM planned to have any character that died be forced into a race/species change upon Resurrection, that should've been discussed at session zero.

Captain Obvious, very much not what I asked. As an obvious homebrew, I ask the forum their thoughts on this decision for Revivify.

It really doesn't make any sense. If the character doesn't even regenerate any lost body parts and any injuries incompatible with life (such as decapitation) would cause the spell to instantly fail, why would the spell change a target's whole body? It doesn't even have the same disadvantages of an actual resurrection since it must be so recent the soul is just hanging around waiting to be crammed back into the body.

No, I'm going to agree with Matt here. This homebrew makes absolutely no sense. Sorry to rain on your parade.

There actually *is* a spell that does bring the character back as a different race in a different body - Reincarnation.

Does it help to know that spells that bring player-characters back to life have once been banned, and when the Book of Ebon Tides came out, the DM decided to "bring back" the spells but with these kinds of twists?

I don't understand the "making sense" part when it comes to magic in a fantasy game. This is not an interpretation but an overriding homebrew rule. Hope this helps clarify things for the forum.

I'm not sure if this is just to specifically refer to Revivify or to all resurrection spells but at that point in either case it makes more sense to just remove resurrection spells and/or rename them as they aren't actually resurrecting them as much as creating undead.

But different... I'm assuming you're still binding their souls to their bodies? Anyway, if you're replacing the very core function of the spells, it makes sense to make some homebrew spells based on the original but with updated names, descriptions, etc.

Also, it no longer seems like a cleric/divine soul spell, instead it's more like dark sorcery. Maybe make them arcane magic, cast by sorcerers and wizards and perhaps clerics of "questionable repute" since it seems extra sketchy and unnatural for holy healers to be creating undead.

The description of Raise Dead, a more powerful spell, notes that the spell neutralizes any poisons that affected the recently deceased character.  Since Revivify description does not, is it safe to say that this spell does not neutralize poisons?

Likewise, Raise Dead notes that characters suffer a -4 d20 penalty for some time.  I assume that is true here as well?  

It doesn't make sense to me otherwise.  Any thoughts?

Quote from ross82675787 >>

The description of Raise Dead, a more powerful spell, notes that the spell neutralizes any poisons that affected the recently deceased character.  Since Revivify description does not, is it safe to say that this spell does not neutralize poisons?

Likewise, Raise Dead notes that characters suffer a -4 d20 penalty for some time.  I assume that is true here as well?  

It doesn't make sense to me otherwise.  Any thoughts?

Spells do what they say they do, and they don't do anything else.

This spell doesn't say it neutralizes poisons, so it doesn't neutralize poisons. This spell doesn't say it imposes a -4 penalty on d20 tests, so it doesn't impose a -4 penalty on d20 tests.

If you're looking for a rationale for the second part, it's because someone revived with this spell has only been dead for less than a minute, while someone revived with Raise Dead could've been dead for up to 10 days, so it's harder to bring them back properly.

Thank you for the reply.  Makes sense to me!  

For material component the previous version says "Diamonds worth 300gp".  New versions says "a diamond worth 300gp".

Does this mean we now can only use a single diamond worth 300gp?  No more bag/bunch of smaller diamonds worth 300gp?

Quote from Morbus99 >>

For material component the previous version says "Diamonds worth 300gp".  New versions says "a diamond worth 300gp".

Does this mean we now can only use a single diamond worth 300gp?  No more bag/bunch of smaller diamonds worth 300gp?

Under Rules As Written, yes, you need a single diamond now. In practice, given what diamonds usually cost, this is probably not much of an issue.