Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AmerginLiath" data-source="post: 7435817" data-attributes="member: 777">I know that this is a resurrected playtest thread about a since-altered spell, but I have a general thought on the question asked: Spare The Dying isn’t a problem, it’s a solution. What I mean by that is that there’s the debate over what level of healing to have in different campaigns and how “easy” dying should be. Changing mechanics can be difficult, even in a fairly modular system, because of how things interact. By comparison, it’s easy to allow or disallow spells on a spell list depending on the nature of a campaign without unbalancing any mechanics — as long as a class has enough to choose from, one less spell on its list is t breaking anything. This particular spell is a perfect example of how to square the circle on healing issues: it’s there as a default for campaigns that want PCs to be able to get back onto their feet more easily; however, removing it simply means PCs default to death saves and Medicine checks, or else more resource-intensive healing magic.(As a way of example, my group has played a Dragonlance mega-campaign on and off for twenty five years in real time and covering a century in campaign time. The source material doesn’t have resurrection spells as a normal thing — characters are only raised by artifacts or acts of gods in the books — so we’ve simply always removed those spells from spell lists in campaigns, which is less problematic given that we tend to all run multiple characters. But it’s led to cool adventures where a death has led to tracking down the rare means to raise a key individual with a lost relic — in one very DL story, my character ended up sacrificing his own life to get the item needed to raise his dead friend. Removing spells from a spell list doesn’t change mechanics but can lead to many interesting moments inside the plot.)</blockquote>

Verification