Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iry" data-source="post: 8256616" data-attributes="member: 6777378">To me, preventing nonmagical illumination is unambiguously blocking you from seeing through it, barring modifiers such as blindsight. While I believe your interpretation is possible, it seems to be a ruling so unlikely as to make the question almost entirely theoretical. And theoretical questions are fine, but in a real game such a ruling would confuse the heck out of most players. Since it's only one spell, they can simply accept it and move on without much impact. But as outlier rulings begin to pile up, the players will increasingly question the validity of cause and effect.Why not?Revivify doesn't care about bodies, beyond not replacing body parts. The spell says you have to touch a creature, which can unambiguously be parts of a body because the spell specifically calls out missing body parts as things that can be missing when you cast it.That using outlier interpretations can cause social and mechanical problems. Even more so if you are a player attempting to push these interpretations at a table. There is nothing to prevent you from doing so, of course, provided you accept the OOC outcome.</blockquote>