13
\$\begingroup\$

The spell 'resurrection' can bring someone back from the dead using only a small portion of their body. Now I ask- If someone is resurrected more often than once, does it matter which body is used?

Scenario: Bob the fighter is slain in combat. The enemy rips off his head and keeps it as a trophy. The rest of the body is later used by the party to resurrect him. Now, the party prepares for revenge. They strike at the Ogre in question, and defeat him. As a fitting reward, and to remember this battle, Bob takes 'his' skull from the Ogre and keeps it with him. Years later, Bob dies again. His body is not accessable to the rest of the party. All they have is the skull of his first incarnation. Could this skull be used to resurrect him despite it not being part of his body last time he was alive?

\$\endgroup\$
16
\$\begingroup\$

Could this skull be used to resurrect him despite it not being part of his body last time he was alive?

Alas, no.

Resurrection reads, in part:

[...] [B]ut the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death.

Poor Bob will remain dead until some portion from the body which was his at the time of death is recovered or his friends seek the services of the higher level True Resurrection.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Making the use of a Retricted Wish spell to retrieve his body in good condition somehow cheaper and more accessible. But yeah, basically that. \$\endgroup\$ – Elindor Nov 9 '17 at 18:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Elindor - I am not familiar with a way to use Limited Wish to produce such an effect -- have I missed something obvious? \$\endgroup\$ – NFeutz Nov 9 '17 at 19:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ Nothing specific just literally retrieving the body with teleportation. It's a cheap alternative to True Ressurection if you can't manage to pay it/cast it. Of course True Ressurection is the best alternative if you have no body at all, but if the body is yet intact in some plane at all... It's an easier alternative. \$\endgroup\$ – Elindor Nov 9 '17 at 19:46
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This doesn't specify WHICH death the part must be from. My interpretation of this is to address the possibility of using, say, a finger that was cut off and stored months before as the target of the spell, not to mean the most recent death. \$\endgroup\$ – ThunderGuppy Nov 9 '17 at 21:01
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThunderGuppy - That’s a reasonable parsing of the text, and I had considered mentioning that in my answer, but felt it might create a bit of bookkeeping to know which body part(s) were or were not present for which deaths. Being that the spell doesn’t say “... at the time of any death” - I felt I had covered the specifics of the question, though it is certainly worth bringing up with the DM. \$\endgroup\$ – NFeutz Nov 9 '17 at 21:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.