As per the 2024 rules update (which I have beef with but am using here to make my point) : >Resurrection >Level 7 Necromancy (Bard, Cleric) >Casting Time: 1 hour >Range: Touch >Components: V, S, M (a diamond worth 1,000+ GP, which the spell consumes) >Duration: Instantaneous >With a touch, you revive a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, didn’t die of old age, and wasn’t Undead when it died. >The creature returns to life with all its Hit Points. This spell also neutralizes any poisons that affected the creature at the time of death. This spell closes all mortal wounds and restores any missing body parts. >Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The target takes a −4 penalty to D20 Tests. Every time the target finishes a Long Rest, the penalty is reduced by 1 until it becomes 0. >Casting this spell to revive a creature that has been dead for 365 days or longer taxes you. Until you finish a Long Rest, you can’t cast spells again, and you have Disadvantage on D20 Tests. I cast Resurrection on the lich BBEG. In 5e Resurrection no longer states that the soul must be willing to return in order for it to work, and there's no save, so it should just work if I'm able to touch him. Takes an hour to cast but we're not worried about that right now. Does it resurrect him properly? New mortal flesh, soul stuffed into it, meaning he is now no longer immortal and loses most of his legendary actions, and the phylactery becomes inert because it's no longer containing a soul? Extending from this, is a proper resurrection just a "get out of undeath free" card and if so why don't we see it used on every undead? It specifies *and wasn’t Undead when it died* but I think most Undead go from Living to Dead to Undead in that order, liches included. Does it just instantly dust him, like throwing a Phoenix Down at an undead does in Final Fantasy? This used to be a solved problem, but between 2014 and 2024 they changed the wording on Resurrection from >You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, that didn't die of old age, and that isn't undead. If its soul is free and willing, the target returns to life with all its hit points. to, now: >With a touch, you revive a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, didn’t die of old age, and wasn’t Undead when it died. There must be a reason why this was changed. *I need answers.*

As per the 2024 rules update (which I have beef with but am using here to make my point) : >Resurrection >Level 7 Necromancy (Bard, Cleric) >Casting Time: 1 hour >Range: Touch >Components: V, S, M (a diamond worth 1,000+ GP, which the spell consumes) >Duration: Instantaneous >With a touch, you revive a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, didn’t die of old age, and wasn’t Undead when it died. >The creature returns to life with all its Hit Points. This spell also neutralizes any poisons that affected the creature at the time of death. This spell closes all mortal wounds and restores any missing body parts. >Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The target takes a −4 penalty to D20 Tests. Every time the target finishes a Long Rest, the penalty is reduced by 1 until it becomes 0. >Casting this spell to revive a creature that has been dead for 365 days or longer taxes you. Until you finish a Long Rest, you can’t cast spells again, and you have Disadvantage on D20 Tests. I cast Resurrection on the lich BBEG. In 5e Resurrection no longer states that the soul must be willing to return in order for it to work, and there's no save, so it should just work if I'm able to touch him. Takes an hour to cast but we're not worried about that right now. Does it resurrect him properly? New mortal flesh, soul stuffed into it, meaning he is now no longer immortal and loses most of his legendary actions, and the phylactery becomes inert because it's no longer containing a soul? Extending from this, is a proper resurrection just a "get out of undeath free" card and if so why don't we see it used on every undead? It specifies *and wasn’t Undead when it died* but I think most Undead go from Living to Dead to Undead in that order, liches included. Does it just instantly dust him, like throwing a Phoenix Down at an undead does in Final Fantasy? This used to be a solved problem, but between 2014 and 2024 they changed the wording on Resurrection from >You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, that didn't die of old age, and that isn't undead. If its soul is free and willing, the target returns to life with all its hit points. to, now: >With a touch, you revive a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, didn’t die of old age, and wasn’t Undead when it died. There must be a reason why this was changed. *I need answers.*

Whatever floats your boat man.

That's going to require a LOT of touching.

Okay. I'll admit: I don’t get it.

Floating a boat generally requires liquid. A LOT of liquid.

There's no rule that says dead creatures can't take action. You'll usually become Unconscious first, but instant death effects including massive damage bypass that. So you can just keep playing. This was clearer in 3.5, where it actually had an entry for the Dead condition which did not say you couldn't take actions.

Properly buffing martials without creating different problems in the process is actually far harder than it seems I'd say. But yes other than that it’s a good solution as well.

it would require a pretty comprehensive rework, yes. You'd need to (as an example): - give martials something really cool that they can do to compete with the "cool factor" spells offer (I think having a large variety of weapon options would help, especially if the weapons all feel different and have different mechanical effects) - Let martials use their physical prowess to dynamically interact with the battle (They can already do things like shoving enemies, but a really robust list of tricks that characters can do with their athletics, acrobatics, stealth, medicine, etc. skills could really help level the playing field. After all, spells are mostly useful for their utility and not just raw damage.) - Make spells less all-or-nothing using multiple saving throws or varying levels of success (this lets you nerf the "top end" of spells while keeping their overall power the same) - give martials more ways to cheat the action economy, like more actions per turn on average than casters get - make more enemies resist magic but weak to normal weapons, or make more enemies weak to certain kinds of physical damage (slashing, piercing, silver, etc.) - give martial characters "backdoors" into magical skill (for example, maybe characters with a high arcana skill can do magic as long as they have time to prepare - like rituals instead of combat magic - or they could use arcana and a satchel full of scrolls/wands to cast magic even as a martial) - give characters more access to ability score increases on their weaker ability scores so they don't have to optimize as heavily around only one ability score ... just to name a few I'd have in mind

There's no rule saying a dog can't play!

I think the last one is not really necessary. Characters having flaws is part of the design philosophy. Martials actually have a small advantage here as it is easier for them to build around their most important abilitiescores.

Don't knock it till you try it. Making MAD builds more viable is really great for the game. Obviously characters will still have a couple low scores, but it's nice not to suck at everything except one thing.

Okay. Giving it a second thought I think specifically giving them the ability to increase one of the mental stats may be a good idea, so long as the philosophy is that they can be as good at it as casters and not just not horrible. Maybe giving them the choice of boosting all ability-Checks and saving throws of one of those by 1 every ASI, but under the premise that this + the stat bonus doesn’t exceed 5.

You could just give players multiple ASIs, but they can't be applied to the same stat

I touch myself

Or that. I think it stills leaves room for Shenanigans though.

I think nonliving creatures may be more specific versions of objects then, since I couldn’t find any reference of creatures not being considered objects (because who would even say that, it should be obvious if you use your brain), but it also means that if a spell or ability only allows you to target or create objects and has no specification in regards to creatures, undead and constructs are valid targets by RAW.