Does reincarnation even make sense?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

As a game mechanic, does the reincarnate spell even make sense? What I mean is, putting aside the fact that some real-world religions believe you can reincarnate as an animal, the most common view of it entails reincarnating as a similar being, i.e. humans reincarnate as humans. When the average person hears the word "reincarnation", they think of coming back in human form, perhaps of a different race, sex, etc, but still human.

I've never understood the AD&D method, where half or more of the time, the PC comes back as a hawk, weasel, badger, whatever. What is the point? From a gaming viewpoint I mean. Yeah,I've heard all the arguments about how if there is no ability to get raised or resurrected within the time limit, reincarnation is an option, and how a wish spell can be used to turn that badger back into the human, elf, dwarf, etc it once was. Besides, if you have access to a wish, the reincarnate spell is superfluous, isn't it?

To me it makes no sense. Animals are not PC classes. Neither are monsters. And good luck bringing that newly-reincarnated stag PC through a dungeon crawl! Ridiculous, in my eyes. I've always believed that the reincarnate spell was poorly designed and that it should have included only options for PC and humanoid classes (elf, dwarf, gnome, human, half-elf, halfling, lizardman, orc, half-orc, etc.). Reincarnate as a stag and you're nothing more than a beast of burden for the other PCs. You can't have a class, as animals don't have a class. Given the choice of having my character reincarnate as a stag or just rolling up a new PC, I'll take rolling up a new PC.

I think changing the spell that way allows for better game play and more is more logical as well.

[garhkal]

There's white a few people over on DF who do allow animals to be used for Pcs.. MY Gripe is by the write up, the spell seems to indicate EVEN IF YOU Come back as a playable race (elf/human etc) YOU still have to make a fresh character.. So this is what i came up with for MY HOUSE rules on reincarnate..

Reincarnation rules: When either a mage or cleric uses reincarnation on a person (rather than resurrection/raise dead) there is a price to pay. Where the res/RD has the loss of Con, reincarnate has the chance of bringing you back as something unplayable.
If on the chart, you are brought back as a standard PC race; whether that is from the PHB or those from the Humanoids handbook, you have the chance of keeping your class and levels earned. Follow these steps. CHECK with the DM to find out which races from the Humanoids HB are allowed before hand though..

A) Reroll (4d6,drop lowest, Reroll any 1s) your Strength, Dexterity and Constitution. This is what your new form has. Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma stay the same.

B) For every 3 points your prior character had ABOVE your new rolled scores in Str/Dex or Con, increase what you rolled by 1. Do not lower the stat if your old form had higher than the new form.

C) If you got a race, which allows your prior class, AND you still qualify for that class, you will keep your prior level –3.

D) If you got a race, which does NOT allow your prior class, you, start in a new class from level 1, gaining 100xp to apply to that class for every 3,000xp your prior class had. If you were a multi classed character, and the form you become still allows one side of that, you keep that side (minus the 3 levels), and your other side becomes a new class with the same XP as above.

E) For each level your prior character had, add 1hp to your new character.

EG. Fillinaous started out as an Elf Fighter/Mage and got to 7/8th level (93,584 xp each side), then died. As he is Elven he cannot get Raised, and no one is of sufficient level to cast Resurrection. So he has a fellow mage use Reincarnate. He rolls on the chart and comes back as a Dwarf. Since Dwarves do NOT allow mages, he has to redo that side, but his fighter side stays as a fighter –3 levels = 4th. He picks cleric as his new class (since his wis was high enough for them (15), and starts with 3119 xp, making him a 3rd level cleric to his 4th level fighter.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

There's white a few people over on DF who do allow animals to be used for Pcs..

I've heard that. To me that makes absolutely zero sense. It's ridiculous. How can an animal be a PC? It cannot have a class. It cannot wield weapons. It cannot wear armor (outside of perhaps custom made material/design, and even then...), it cannot use pretty much any magic item, etc. And if the PCs don't have some magic ability to speak with animals, how do they communicate? Some of them can't even go on adventures and/or tag along. I can see a badger exploring a dungeon, but a stag? That's always my favorite example. A stag. He's not going dungeon crawling in his custom-made stag armor and custom-made sharpened iron antler coverings.

MY Gripe is by the write up, the spell seems to indicate EVEN IF YOU Come back as a playable race (elf/human etc) YOU still have to make a fresh character..

Yeah, that sucks too. Granted, in a very low level game it might suffice. But if you're at, say, 12th level, it's not gonna cut it having a PC come back at 1st level. Water boy! Fetch my sword!

So this is what i came up with for MY HOUSE rules on reincarnate..

I'd say that's fair and a definite improvement from the original spell. My only issue is that I never liked doing all that calculating and fussing about. I'd just have them come back at the same level, or perhaps give or take 1d3 levels. But that's just me - I like things very simplified when it comes to this sort of stuff.

[garhkal]

But if you are just going to let them come back at the same level, why not just let raise dead work on anyone?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

I'm just not fond of having someone come back a large number of levels lower. The way I'm looking at it, when you get raised or resurrected you lose a point of CON. When you get reincarnated, you lose (most likely) all class abilities - plus you may come back as a very undesirable race. I'd say that's penalty enough without also losing levels.

But I was thinking about re-doing the reincarnate spell (we've rarely ever used it in our games) altogether, to where the reincarnated person only comes back as either a proper PC race (human, elf, half-elf, gnome, dwarf, halfling, half-orc) or as a humanoid race (minotaur, lizardman, orc, etc). No animal forms. I wouldn't be averse to allowing a character who is reincarnated into a new body to retain any class he may have once had, regardless of racial restriction (which I do use). The way I see it, a paladin who is reincarnated as an orc is not tainted by evil. His spirit is still clean. There's no reason his alignment should have to change any more so than if he'd been polymorphed or shapechanged into an orc.

I'm also thinking it would be easier to simply retain the former incarnation's class. Otherwise, it becomes problematic. If a reincarnated character comes back BTB as a 1st level character in a party of 12th level PCs, he may as well stay home. He's not even worth babysitting. And regardless of whether we allow the reincarnated person to come back at the same level, a somewhat lower level, or at 1st level, how to determine what class he qualifies for? I've ruled out the pointlessness of having him reincarnate as a new 1st level character because that's worthless. So if say the character was a human cleric and comes back as a gnome, then BTB be cannot be a cleric anymore. So what then? Did his god abandon him simply because he changed forms? That seems wrong. And then, what class does he become? At least with rangers and paladins the reincarnated character can default back to fighter. But what about clerics or wizards? What do they become in their newly incarnated bodies? They can't simply acquire the skills of say a 5th or 12th level fighter or thief because they have no training, experience or memory of it. It all becomes quite tedious.

So I'd probably go with allowing the new form to retain both alignment and class. It fixes all the problems. Perhaps still lose a point of CON, simply because the PC died and the new form simply lacks the life force lost due to dying. Allow the same level/class/alignment. There's plenty of roleplaying issues to deal with coming back as another race entirely, especially if it's a humanoid race such as orc, lizardman, etc.

[garhkal]

I;m not fond of letting a race that normally can't have that class though, get one just cause someone reincarnated into it..

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Problem is - what to do with them?

Going back to my earlier example - if a human cleric is reincarnated as a gnome, and therefore in meta-game terms does not qualify for cleric, what happens to him? What class does he become? Why does his god abandon him? Remember - the assumption in AD&D is that PCs, when they begin at 1st level, already have training in their particular classes. So for example, a 1st level fighter, before he actually attained 1st level, was a 0th-level person who trained to become a fighter. Likewise, a 1st level cleric does not simply join the church today and become an adventuring cleric complete with spells tomorrow. It's an in-game understanding that the adventuring cleric first served his time as a 0th-level character, learning his spells and rituals until he gained the ability to become a 1st level character.

This poses a problem even if the reincarnated character comes back as a 1st level beginning character. A human cleric who dies and is reincarnated as a gnome comes back with which class? Thief? Where is the experience and training coming from that is the prerequisite to becoming a 1st level thief? It doesn't exist. Wizard? Again, where is his prerequisite training in magic? Same for the fighter class - where is his fighter experience? All he really has are his memories and experiences as a cleric - so what else can he logically become in his new race, other than what he once was - a cleric.

It just doesn't work in game terms. So there has to be a solution to the poorly designed reincarnate spell.

As far as not adhering to class/race restrictions, I'm looking at it from a practicality/logical viewpoint, not a meta-game rules viewpoint. In game terms, why can't halflings be paladins? Because they're generally not courageous enough, not noble enough, not driven. Why can't orcs be paladins? Because they're a generally evil race, raised committing acts of evil from an early age. And so on and so forth. But what is actually being reincarnated? The soul/spirit of the being who died. So the spirit of the paladin who is reincarnated in say an orc or halfling body - why would it stop being a paladin? Is his spirit or soul any less worthy, any less noble, any less holy? I'd argue no. He's not being raised as an orc in an evil orc society doing evil things, nor is he coming back in the body of a halfling who's grown up for decades being lazy and cowardly. He's simply being incarnated on the spot in a different form. What I'm trying to say is this - does form dictate alignment and class ability? If that's the case (that form determines alignment and class assignment), then shouldn't a human paladin who is shapechanged or polymorphed into an orc form no longer a paladin?

[garhkal]

Problem is - what to do with them?

Going back to my earlier example - if a human cleric is reincarnated as a gnome, and therefore in meta-game terms does not qualify for cleric, what happens to him? What class does he become? Why does his god abandon him? Remember - the assumption in AD&D is that PCs, when they begin at 1st level, already have training in their particular classes. So for example, a 1st level fighter, before he actually attained 1st level, was a 0th-level person who trained to become a fighter. Likewise, a 1st level cleric does not simply join the church today and become an adventuring cleric complete with spells tomorrow. It's an in-game understanding that the adventuring cleric first served his time as a 0th-level character, learning his spells and rituals until he gained the ability to become a 1st level character.

In 1e yes a gnome couldn't be a cleric. Even iirc UA still kept that restriction. BUT i don't see any restrictions on Gnome clerics in 2e..

This poses a problem even if the reincarnated character comes back as a 1st level beginning character. A human cleric who dies and is reincarnated as a gnome comes back with which class? Thief? Where is the experience and training coming from that is the prerequisite to becoming a 1st level thief? It doesn't exist. Wizard? Again, where is his prerequisite training in magic? Same for the fighter class - where is his fighter experience? All he really has are his memories and experiences as a cleric - so what else can he logically become in his new race, other than what he once was - a cleric.

Which is where my HR tries to address it..

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

In 1e yes a gnome couldn't be a cleric. Even iirc UA still kept that restriction. BUT i don't see any restrictions on Gnome clerics in 2e..

True. But you see the point, right?

Which is where my HR tries to address it..

You lost me just a bit on that part. I get the part where if you come back as a race eligible for the prior incarnation's class, you retain the class minus 3 levels. The part I'm not understanding is:

D) If you got a race, which does NOT allow your prior class, you, start in a new class from level 1, gaining 100xp to apply to that class for every 3,000xp your prior class had.

Again, how is that class determined, and where is the experience in that class coming from?

If a PC cleric dies and is reincarnated as a race that is not eligible for cleric, but is eligible for fighter or thief, then how is that possible? A thief character is assumed to have spent his formative years studying pick-pocketing and pilfering and sneaking around in shadows. When his skill set is high enough, he becomes a 1st level adventuring thief. It's not the case where a farmer has been milking cows and growing crops one day, and the next day he buys some lock picks and goes out adventuring as a 1st level thief. Those formative years and early training are assumed and implied within the game. I believe it was in the hardcover Greyhawk Adventures book where it actually explains this and allows players to play 0th-level characters to gain their class at 1st level.

So assuming this newly incarnated PC was formerly a holy cleric, where is he attaining even the prerequisite training as a thief at 0th-level that provides him with the skills he needs to become a 1st level thief? As a cleric, he's probably never picket a pocket (or a lock), climbed a wall, snuck around in shadows, or back-stabbed anyone. It's even less logical for him to reincarnate and become a 2nd or 3rd level thief with no thief background or training. That's what I'm not understanding.

[garhkal]

Its not meant to be logical.. Its meant to be gamist to where they come back as something still usable. I would think a pc being reincarnated say from an elf (can be mages) into a dwarf (and say picks cleric) would rather get some bump up in level, from what his mage side got up to, rather than start afresh. Might as well just make a new pc up..

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

Its not meant to be logical.. Its meant to be gamist to where they come back as something still usable. I would think a pc being reincarnated say from an elf (can be mages) into a dwarf (and say picks cleric) would rather get some bump up in level, from what his mage side got up to, rather than start afresh. Might as well just make a new pc up..

Ah, I see! I wasn't thinking in gamist terms. I was looking at it from an in-game logic standpoint. For me, it would have to work on an in-game logic approach, not the gamist approach. And I know I've had at least a few players who would hit me with - "Hey! How did he come back as a ranger when he used to be a thief?" or something to that effect. It's the Curse of the Logical Players! Everything has to make sense to them. Though in this case I'd probably say I feel the same way.

[garhkal]

And that's the problem.. Back in the day, we didn't have players nit picking things in that manner, where today we seem to get it all the time.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

True, today's players are too picky. Too fussy. But I kinda have to admit, I sorta liked the level of logic many of my players expected. They weren't obnoxiously fussy, but they did respect in-game logic and expected it to prevail. I think it made me a better DM for it. Things within the game made sense. They never harmed suspension of disbelief. Even when we ret-conned some aspect of continuity (extremely rare, but it has happened a couple of times), it allowed me to make the ret-con logical and sensible. Which is why I don't like the reincarnate spell as designed. It's not logical. It doesn't make sense within the sphere of in-game logic and consistency.

[garhkal]

But that's the thing. It was made as a way along with raise dead/resurrection, for players to keep their characters continuing on.. IF its so illogical, just remove it, which kind of screws over elves who can't be raised..

[Lyrwik]

I'd always thought of reincarnation as being the poor man's resurrection. However, looking back at the phb, they're both level 7 spells, so I'm somewhat mistaken there. If it were a lower level spell, I think it would make more sense (at least in gamist terms), and also in terms of potentially using more 'natural' means to bring someone back, if reincarnation (in the traditional sense) is a real thing in your world.

However, the thing I always thought was odd about it, was that it's not really reincarnation. Reincarnation implies being born as something new. This would make for a cool spell, if you could cause someone to be reborn - at least for NPCs. For example, imagine there being some powerful, evil wizard who gets reincarnated each time he dies, and thus seems to rise again and again through the ages, each time in a different form. However, I can't imaging anyone having much fun, having their character sit out for 15+ years of in-game time while their newly reincarnated human baby grows up.

Back to what I said about it not really being reincarnation - the way I interpret what the spell is doing, it's either:
creating a new body for the soul/consciousness to occupy; or
there's some other poor sod who was just hanging around, and has now just had their soul/consciousness displaced by the PC's.

Either of these could be fine as level 7 spells, but they're not really reincarnation. This second one I can also see as potentially a pretty cool spell, and something which I'm sure I've seen in various games/movies/books, where the evil guy wants to transfer their soul/consciousness into some young strapping lad/lass, thus continuing their eternal life.