Just had to ask a question. Reincarnation has always been in D&D as far back as I've ever found. It was always a fun way for the DM to mess with players, and an interesting challenge to deal with in character and in combat as a player. Why does it seem reincarnation been chucked into the bin for 4e? (I still hold out some hope to see it as a ritual in the phb2 but I doubt it)
Time will tell.
Just had to ask a question. Reincarnation has always been in D&D as far back as I've ever found. It was always a fun way for the DM to mess with players, and an interesting challenge to deal with in character and in combat as a player. Why does it seem reincarnation been chucked into the bin for 4e? (I still hold out some hope to see it as a ritual in the phb2 but I doubt it)
Answer me a question first (rude, I know); What was the purpose of Resurrection when you had Raise Dead?
Answer me a question first (rude, I know); What was the purpose of Resurrection when you had Raise Dead?
It's lower level, and more fun (if also sort of insane)!
Well I could easily see it as unfun, if my character was ressurected, but in form of some totally random creature.
Man all this taking out of the unfun spells is really spoiling my fun
I played a goat for 2 sessions before we met a druid-type npc who changed me back to a halfling! That was fun. But admittedly the DM let me talk as long as I used a goat voice. And I had a kick attack that was like 2d6. Kind of homebrew...but fun.Answer me a question first (rude, I know); What was the purpose of Resurrection when you had Raise Dead?
Aside from the spell level, and the price to have an NPC cast it, and the fun factor. both Raise Dead and Revive/Ressurection (I understand the wizard didn't get the revive spell in 3e) needed at least a part if not all of the dead individual's body to function, reincarnation was a fall back if the dead individual's body was lost completely.
It's lower level, and more fun (if also sort of insane)!
I'm checking my 2ed AD&D PHb and Reincarnate is 7th level, accessed at 14th level, while Raise dead is 5th level, accessed at 9th level. So... That's definitely not the reason. You have Raise Dead first.
It's lower level, and more fun (if also sort of insane)!
Getting brought back as a creature who can't make use of my class features and gear is a definition of fun with which I am utterly unfamiliar.
I'm checking my 2ed AD&D PHb and Reincarnate is 7th level, accessed at 14th level, while Raise dead is 5th level, accessed at 9th level. So... That's definitely not the reason. You have Raise Dead first.
Sorry, I'm talking 3.5, not AD&D.
Sorry, I'm talking 3.5, not AD&D.
Are you changing your argument to, "The game has changed Reincarnation in every edition" then?
That's a good reason for it to be changed in 4e.
I'm checking my 2ed AD&D PHb and Reincarnate is 7th level, accessed at 14th level, while Raise dead is 5th level, accessed at 9th level. So... That's definitely not the reason. You have Raise Dead first.
I can't speak for 2e, but in 3.x Reincarnate was given to a class that didn't have access to Raise Dead or Ressurection. Druids needed a spell to bring back the dead, and reincarnation was a better thematic fit than the other two spells. Also, IIRC in 3.0 Reincarnate did not require a body like Raise Dead, but was lower level than Ressurection. In 3.5, Reincarnate did require the body, but was one level lower than Raise Dead. In retrospect the mechanics may have been a bit wonky, but hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. So in 3.x anyway, there was plenty of reason to have Reincarnate alongside Raise Dead and Ressurection.
and I also must point out, Wizards changed almost everything when they bought out TSR.
Yeah, 3e isn't D&D
Resurrection fulfilled the same purpose at the same level in 2e.
When 3e was introduced, Reincarnate was limited to Druids. Please point out the page number Druids appear in 4e.
Since Resurrection was also "tossed in the bin", you're setting up a straw man by claiming that the issue is Reincarnate itself. Are you wondering what happened to Rituals to bring people back from the dead without any body parts?
I can't speak for 2e, but in 3.x Reincarnate was given to a class that didn't have access to Raise Dead or Ressurection. Druids needed a spell to bring back the dead, and reincarnation was a better thematic fit than the other two spells. Also, IIRC in 3.0 Reincarnate did not require a body like Raise Dead, but was lower level than Ressurection. In 3.5, Reincarnate did require the body, but was one level lower than Raise Dead. In retrospect the mechanics may have been a bit wonky, but hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. So in 3.x anyway, there was plenty of reason to have Reincarnate alongside Raise Dead and Ressurection.
You're only proving that Reincarnate changed in each of the past three editions. The purpose it served changed as well. There is no reason to conclude it does not change in 4e.
Are you wondering what happened to Rituals to bring people back from the dead without any body parts?
Ah you make yet another flawed comment, in 2e, resurrection did need at least some body part to function even if it was a single bone, if you didn't have that though, once again reincarnation is the only thing that would work. Besides I just like useing reincarnate to throw my players off, particularly if I have a nasty enemy they thought they killed come back in that way. Looks like I'll just have to house rule it for now.
All the Best,
Nani?
in 2e, resurrection did need at least some body part to function even if it was a single bone,
From the book, "The material components of the spell are the priest's religious symbol and holy water (unholy for the reverse spell)."
That's it. The body is not required.
From the book, "The material components of the spell are the priest's religious symbol and holy water (unholy for the reverse spell)."
That's it. The body is not required.
Nice job neglecting to add the last part of that paragraph, I'll quote it for you.
The DM may reduce the chances of a successful resurrection if little of the creature's remains are available.
This would imply that if there are no remains available the chances become 0%
Answer me a question first (rude, I know); What was the purpose of Resurrection when you had Raise Dead?
Well in 3.5:
1, Druid spell not Cleric Spell
2, Available at level 7, Raise Dead level 9
3, 4,000gp cheaper
In a 3.5 game I play, my character still requests Re-incarnate because it's cheaper, and if he is returning to the living world, has far more important uses of his 4,000gp than the raise himself.
Also, it's a great roleplaying prop - I have so far been Human\Dward\Gnome\Elf - considering that our group is wanted in some countries (for working on behalf of the King of our original kingdom) - it's the most awesome disguise out there :D
Nice job neglecting to add the last part of that paragraph, I'll quote it for you.
This would imply that if there are no remains available the chances become 0%
You mean the second sentence mentioning the DM has the power to screw over the player if he chooses? Yeah. Key word may, subjective word little. The spell only has a chance of failure as a result of an individual DM choosing to exercise Rule Zero. Otherwise, the spell assumes 100% success rate. How much does it take to reduce the chance to 50%? Half the body? Only an arm? If you reduce it to 50%, does that mean you can keep casting the spell until it takes?
The sentence is no different from, "If the DM chooses, the spell may not work if you don't have the entire body."
Contrast to "Note that the body of the person must be whole, or otherwise missing body parts are still missing when the person is brought back to life." Which, according to a strict interpretation, would allow you to bring back a character in the form of their finger. Regeneration would be nice, though.
If nothing else, it's a wacky variant spell that didn't need to be taking up room in the PH1. Given my druthers, I'd see it recreated via an optional sidebar in PH2 or Divine Power. Same as Raise Dead ritual but at a reduced cost (or perhaps available at a lower level), and a random roll for race (none of this turning into a duck business; humanoid mortalkind only). In keeping with 4e's ethos of not being a jerkass, it should have a caveat that says the race in which the character is resurrected may be predetermined by an agreement between player and DM.
Are you changing your argument to, "The game has changed Reincarnation in every edition" then?
That's a good reason for it to be changed in 4e.
Huh? I wasn't aware I had an argument here. I just told the OP that he should probably just wait and see what happens with Reincarnate in the new edition. Then somebody else asked me why anyone would use reincarnate instead of raise dead, and I said 'because it's lower-level and crazier'. That's it.
I think you have me confused with someone. I don't have an opinion here.
If nothing else, it's a wacky variant spell that didn't need to be taking up room in the PH1. Given my druthers, I'd see it recreated via an optional sidebar in PH2 or Divine Power. Same as Raise Dead ritual but at a reduced cost (or perhaps available at a lower level), and a random roll for race (none of this turning into a duck business; humanoid mortalkind only). In keeping with 4e's ethos of not being a jerkass, it should have a caveat that says the race in which the character is resurrected may be predetermined by an agreement between player and DM.
Sounds like a good fix for those who want the spell back. Seems reasonable.
But it's so much more hardcore to adventure as a duck because you rolled a single dice wrong. :P
From the book, "The material components of the spell are the priest's religious symbol and holy water (unholy for the reverse spell)."
That's it. The body is not required.
The body was not the material component, but what the spell was affecting. and it had a range of touch meaning he had to physically touch the subject for it to have an effect, so ya a body was required.
Also, it's a great roleplaying prop - I have so far been Human\Dward\Gnome\Elf - considering that our group is wanted in some countries (for working on behalf of the King of our original kingdom) - it's the most awesome disguise out there :D
3.5e, 1% chance for the player to get screwed out of his character
d% Incarnation Str Dex Con
01 Bugbear +4 +2 +2
02–13 Dwarf +0 +0 +2
14–25 Elf +0 +2 –2
26 Gnoll +4 +0 +2
27–38 Gnome –2 +0 +2
39–42 Goblin –2 +2 +0
43–52 Half-elf +0 +0 +0
53–62 Half-orc +2 +0 +0
63–74 Halfling –2 +2 +0
75–89 Human +0 +0 +0
90–93 Kobold –4 +2 –2
94 Lizardfolk +2 +0 +2
95–98 Orc +4 +0 +0
99 Troglodyte +0 –2 +4
100 Other (DM’s choice)
01 Bugbear +4 +2 +2
02–13 Dwarf +0 +0 +2
14–25 Elf +0 +2 –2
26 Gnoll +4 +0 +2
27–38 Gnome –2 +0 +2
39–42 Goblin –2 +2 +0
43–52 Half-elf +0 +0 +0
53–62 Half-orc +2 +0 +0
63–74 Halfling –2 +2 +0
75–89 Human +0 +0 +0
90–93 Kobold –4 +2 –2
94 Lizardfolk +2 +0 +2
95–98 Orc +4 +0 +0
99 Troglodyte +0 –2 +4
100 Other (DM’s choice)
Then somebody else asked me why anyone would use reincarnate instead of raise dead, and I said 'because it's lower-level and crazier'. That's it.
I think you have me confused with someone. I don't have an opinion here.
1st) I didn't ask you :P
2nd) I wasn't commenting on your first post
3rd) I wasn't asking about "last edition", so the conclusion I intended for anyone reading (based on the OP's statement that D&D has always had Reincarnate) was to state the use of Reincarnate as a whole, rather than in one edition. Obviously it has no use in 4th edition as it stands ;)
4th) If you don't have an opinion, why'd you call Reincarnation fun? :P
The body was not the material component, but what the spell was affecting. and it had a range of touch meaning he had to physically touch the subject for it to have an effect, so ya a body was required.
Reincarnate has the same casting restriction, so ya a body was required. ;)
(EDIT: sorry for triple-post)
Roll Incarnation
01-03 Badger
04-08 Bear, black
09-12 Bear, brown
13-16 Boar, wild
17-19 Centaur
20-23 Dryad
24-28 Eagle
29-31 Elf
32-34 Faun/satyr
35-36 Fox
37-40 Gnome
41-44 Hawk
45-58 Human
59-61 Lynx
62-64 Owl
65-68 Pixie
69-70 Raccoon
71-75 Stag
76-80 Wolf
81-85 Wolverine
86-00 DM's choice
My guess on the next Reincarnate ritual? Allows you to become the form of any living form your DM approves of. Making it both a method of changing races, and therefore purely a role-playing tool, not a "how can I make you useless this week?" tool.
We always played it in 2e that turning into an animal was the "natural order" of things and basically turned you into an NPC. It did suck sometimes, but hey, no different to playing with a deck of many things really
1st) I didn't ask you :P
2nd) I wasn't commenting on your first post
3rd) I wasn't asking about "last edition", so the conclusion I intended for anyone reading (based on the OP's statement that D&D has always had Reincarnate) was to state the use of Reincarnate as a whole, rather than in one edition. Obviously it has no use in 4th edition as it stands ;)
4th) If you don't have an opinion, why'd you call Reincarnation fun? :P
1.) I didn't say you did, I said someone did.
2.) Which one, then?
3.) Okay.
4.) Fine, my opinion is that reincarnate is fun. :P
Well actually for 2e I used the revised reincarnation list that appeared in the CBoH, which had a much lower chance of screwing over players, though its much too long for me to reprint here. Also thank you sjmcc13 I knew there was something saying it required a body, plus in 2e ressurection required you to succeed both a ressurection survival check then a system shock check, reincarnation requires neither. Now in 4e I agree, a resurrection that didn't requrie a body would replace the need but I'd much rather they don't to that and eleminate reincarnation, it was always fun from both sides of the DM screen.
1st- understandable. I'd never calculated that percentage till now (yikes!)
2nd- what's CBoH stand for?
3rd- You'd still need a Reincarnate for the purpose of changing races.
You're only proving that Reincarnate changed in each of the past three editions. The purpose it served changed as well. There is no reason to conclude it does not change in 4e.
:rolleye2: I never said that it shouldn't be changed to better fit 4e, nor that it didn't change over previous editions. Neither did the OP.
I was just trying to answer your question- which by the way I assumed meant to say Reincarnate instead of Ressurection. I'm not really sure where you're going with that question, because you seem to be arguing with statements nobody made.
The main thing is, I feel like you're being combative just to keep an edge in a non-existant edition war. Similar to the way you acted in the Clerics/Paladin thread; I asked how to create an Atonement mechanic for 4e and you wanted to argue around me by saying it didn't belong in 4e at all*. Now, I didn't bring this up to imply that you shouldn't have an opinion about what concepts do and don't belong in D&D; I brought it up because if you continue acting this way every time someone wants to discuss reintroducing a 3e mechanic into 4e, you're going to perpetuate the edition war. I only mention this because I think there's a possibility that you don't realize how you're being interpreted.
*Now granted in the Cleric/Paladin thread I indicated that I was interested the should and the should nots, but in this thread the OP seems to want to discuss how to implement a Reincarnate mechanic in 4e, or what happened to rituals that return the dead to life in new/different bodies? The should/should nots have some place in the conversation, but there's no need to use them as a club.
Vebrandsson, like you said it's possible but unlikely that Reincarnate will show up as a Ritual in the future. As Leichenreiter said it should be possible to homebrew it though. I'd start with the following two questions:
Should the mechanic for Reincarnate be as random as it was in the past?
What should be gained/lost when the new body is accepted?
Crazysamaritan in light of the posts in the thread you've made since I started typing this, I may have jumped the gun a bit. If so, I apologize.
We always played it in 2e that turning into an animal was the "natural order" of things and basically turned you into an NPC. It did suck sometimes, but hey, no different to playing with a deck of many things really
Which is why most people avoided both of those.
I'm not really sure where you're going with that question, because you seem to be arguing with statements nobody made. The main thing is, I feel like you're being combative just to keep an edge in a non-existent edition war.
What I'm hearing from you is that I'm coming across as aggressive and illogical. You don't see the motives behind my actions, and my actions read like someone who is trying to defend themselves (again, illogical) from an attack.
Okay, I'll explain my position. Before we can talk about Reincarnation being in 4e, we have to talk about Reincarnation in 3rd, 2nd, and 1st. Like a Wizard's magic missile, looking at the rules for it in 3rd doesn't tell us how it should work in 4e. We have to compare relative power and placement in more than one edition to see it as part of the D&D identity.
One of the big points I wanted the OP to realize is that the Reincarnation ritual was given to the "heal-bot" class that didn't have access to Raise Dead. 3rd made Reincarnation part of the druid identity. If 4e is keeping the Reincarnation ritual with the Druid, it will be with the druid.
The second big point I wanted him to understand was to look at the rules, not his memories. I cannot share his memories, so we have to compare rules. Based on the rules for 2e reincarnate, you were lucky to continue playing if you used it. This second point reinforces the "use" of the ritual.
The answer to the OP's question (which is, ostensibly) "Why isn't Reincarnation in the PHB1?" is more complex than just "They got rid of it", but that seems to be the conclusion the OP has arrived at before posting.
Similar to the way you acted in the Clerics/Paladin thread;
Link, please, I don't know this thread.
Link, please, I don't know this thread.
Erm, I think I owe you a bigger apology than I already indicated. I mentally associated some statements from that thread to you. Honestly, I'm suprised that you didn't post anything in the Cleric/Paladin thread considering it was created from our exchange in Warweaver's thread. Anyway, I have a much clearer understanding of your previous statements now, and I'm sorry for the confusion.
2nd- what's CBoH stand for?
That would be the Complete Book of Humanoids. Its reincarnation table has something like 54 entries only 16 of which aren't playable races (assuming you allow all the new playable races introduced in the rest of the book). However as the list is percentile die based (and the phb races get a wider number range) and split between the wizard and priest versions of the spell its increidably dificult to calculate an actual percentage.
I was reincarnated as a squirrel once, only to be awakened by our druid and continue my thief like ways as an innocent squirrel, thankfully i had didn't wear armour to begin with
That is awesome.
Why does it seem reincarnation been chucked into the bin for 4e?
Well, it seems more like Druids were "chucked into the bin" for 4e... but we expect Druids to appear later, and I kinda expect reincarnation to appear as a ritual later. All things considered, this ritual seems completely appropriate for delaying.
This would imply that if there are no remains available the chances become 0%
Saying something implies that you are right is like saying your proof is completely subjective. Actually it's exactly that - except the spell says "may" and makes it completely optional.
Also, nowhere does it say "impossible". It says it modifies the chances - nothing about "0%".
But sure! If you change the way the spell functions and stretch the definition of the spell text and ignore the actual mechanic of it, then you'd have a valid point. And not a flawed argument. Who knows why you're practically congratulating yourself over such a insipid response as that.
Well, it seems more like Druids were "chucked into the bin" for 4e... but we expect Druids to appear later, and I kinda expect reincarnation to appear as a ritual later. All things considered, this ritual seems completely appropriate for delaying.
umm, I though druids were being released in march (PHB2), they were previewedalready as well.
umm, I though druids were being released in march (PHB2), they were previewedalready as well.
Exactly. I was using his quote ironically.
A nice DM would let you do Duck Mage and Ninja Squirrel, but the OP wording of "mess with the players" doesn't make me think it would be fun at all.
A nice DM would let you do Duck Mage and Ninja Squirrel, but the OP wording of "mess with the players" doesn't make me think it would be fun at all.
Pitchers throw curve balls to mess with the batters, does the existance of curve balls make baseball un-fun?
Pitchers throw curve balls to mess with the batters, does the existance of curve balls make baseball un-fun?
Being reincarnated as a duck isn't a curve ball. Being reincarnated as another viable PC race would be a curve ball. Coming back as an animal is throwing a grenade instead of a baseball.
*BOOM* "Well, HE can't play anymore ..."
That's all it did. It gave a completely random chance to screw your character and make it impossible to play. It's gone and it should not EVER come back.
It gave a completely random chance to screw your character and make it impossible to play.
1e reincarnations pretty well nuked your character (but then, so did a *lot* of arbitrary things in 1e... such was the nature of earlier editions).
The 3.5 reincarnation table wasn't that bad though... all options were at least playable (and some were even improvements). My PC's would often prefer them to regular resurrections (just for the fun of it).
At worst, you could just pay 1530 gp for a miracle to turn you back into your original form.
In its original form, it was a random change to the character - something that made sense in the older rules (especially in the days of roll 3d6, in order), but does not fit into today's model of the carefully planned and constructed "build". Someone who has planned their character's entire career doesn't want those careful plans disrupted by the suddenly becoming a goblin.
And it was also typically a cheaper alternative to the raise dead spell, and thus was often the refuge of those characters who could not afford to come back. Or for Elves, since Elves could not be raised with a raise dead spell. But with a raise dead now being much more affordable (and working on elves) it no longer serves that purpose either.
(Aside: And in our old 1stAD&D group, we had a full set of rules that made playing animals, etc. work - using the race as class concept. For example, one player had a Giant Eagle. Of course, in keeping with those rules, the max level was limited - so as a Giant Eagle he was essentially a fighter with a max level of 4. But he could fly which was useful at times. Of course, all of the various races/animals couldn't be raised either, so once you started playing a reincarnate, you were dependant upon reincarnation for all your future lives. I think one of my characters went through around six or seven races - including ogre mage - before ending up human again.).
In other words - for most players - it really is no longer a useful spell as it was originally written. Except, perhaps, as a way to play a non-human race if your DM didn't allow you to start as one.
On a related note: How many of you actually used the reincarnate spell to bring back your character in 3.x as written.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if some version of Reincarnation is written as a ritual. It just wouldn't expect it to be like the old version.
And if you have a good idea about how such a ritual should work, send it to Goodman Games and get published: http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&p=23101
Carl
How many of you actually used the reincarnate spell to bring back your character in 3.x as written.
I did whenever possible. Anecdotes:
1) My human barbarian (Mallet) had the heart of a gnomish tinkerer. He carried a book of crazy gnomish inventions with him and frequently (when fellow PC's helped him with the words) tried to make the creations... usually with disastrous results. He eventually became literate and put considerable skill points into "Craft: crazy inventions". After an untimely death, he was reincarnated and (completely by coincidence) actually became a gnome.
2) The party's human cleric died in a nasty location (Divided Ire in the Savage Tide Adventure Path). The only one available to bring him back was an eccentric, gnomish Druid Cohort (Urol Forol). The result wasn't bad at all (an elf), but the cleric still used a miracle the next day to change back to his original race.
3) I desired to play the raven familiar (Edgar) of my archmage PC as a PC for a new campaign starting in the same world. The archmage had already paid for an empowered awaken to be cast on the bird (thus justifying decent mental stats), and we reasoned that a maximized reincarnate could justify picking a suitable, standard race.
However, we did some roleplaying before the reincarnation occurred:
The established high level party (including the archmage) gave the new 1st level party an opportunity to draw from a Deck of Many Things. But despite many safeguards, the new crew had terrible luck and lost almost the entire party to bad draws.
When it came Edgar's turn, he drew a reaper. His master could destroy this with ease... but it could take more than a round, and in that time the bird would likely be dead and his soul gone forever. The archmage thought quick and did the unthinkable: he blasted his own familiar with a fireball in order to save it's soul to be reincarnated.
On a related note: How many of you actually used the reincarnate spell to bring back your character in 3.x as written.
I have used it 3 times in one characters life. Started as a Human, then dwarf, then gnome, now human again.
He even has access to raise dead, but for 4K more, he has better things to do, and even when the king was paying, he say it as a civil duty to save the king money.
One of my best characters EVER!!!