I think limiting spells to mostly do what they say they do (while ignoring obviously stupid interactions like the one above) is actually somewhat balancing, because it otherwise increases the power and utility of casters over martials even further.

I mean… since the spell does not say that undead are excluded from revivification, you could very well just do that if you get your hands on the ghost in time.

nah, dnd insists on being specific but isn't particularly well written they can either not write their rules to be so specific or proof read them better

This reminds me of the necromancers are slavers discourse.

I think that the best thing about tabletop games is that you are not bound by someone else's rules and can decide on the spot what works and what doesn't. It makes for more interesting plays that just adhere to the words written on the page. A few years ago, me and my party were stuck in the sewers with giant invisible spiders stalking us. When they attacked us, the Paladin threw some water around so that the water hitting the invisible bodies would make them visible. There's no specific rule for that, but it made for a cool moment. At the same time, even if Firebolt explicitly states that it sets objects on fire and Investiture of Flame doesn't, if the Sorcerer wants to burn stuff with it, I'll allow it. From experience, the only way to somewhat balance martials and casters is to either give the martials broken stuff, or play homebrew classes that actually care about giving them interesting features to play with. Allowing the players to interact with the environment using their tools (as long as they don't specifically infringe on established rules) doesn't change the power dynamics between casters and non-casters. Sure, it *technically* increases the utility of casters a bit more, but chances are that they have countless tools for the job anyway. The martials are still eating dirt miles behind them.

If you look up the definition for an Object, it specifies that it is "a nonliving, distinct thing" — such as a corpse. However, the definition of Creature does not say it must be living. So, a corpse is **both** a creature and an object. There are creatures that are not nonliving, but also not living: undead. There are even creatures that have never been living — such as constructs — and thus are also objects.

Nah it's an arbitrary window determined by your DM's level of patience

Taking thing literally (especially in an RP game) just shows a lake of creativity. Table top books like DND have always been a framework to give you ideas. everything else is between you and the players

worrying about balance is another literalism imo. You can make anything fun and enjoyable with the right story, items, and creativity

What I want to know is, if the gap between casters and non-casters is truly that big, why are players still picking non-caster classes? Might as well use one of the half-/third-caster classes and reflavor the magic to make them superpowered martials if you just really want to play a character that only makes narrative sense as a non-caster.

Not everyone wants to play a caster.

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.*

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.

So just buff the martials! Easy peasy

Some DMs have the luck of a whole table of patients.

That's dying. Bleeding out. It's not even necessarily truly unconscious (even if it is Unconscious).

"Balance" gets abused a lot, as a term. It means multiple things, and it results in people talking past each other. Intra-party balance -- that is, everyone in the party being approximately equally capable -- is important for most tables because *most people resent getting clowned on by their so-called allies*. Creature/encounter balance is not about forcing the fights players get into to be fair, but about having a reliable way of telling how hard the fight will be. That knowledge is not an obligation to make the fights fair.

Bro, first wall of force and now this? I need to sub to this community lol

The Matt Colville approach

Balancing martials and casters is easy. All you have to do is sell your D&D books for Draw Steel books.