Does resurrecting a creature killed by the disintegrate spell (or similar) with wish trigger the non-spell replicating penalties of the wish spell?

The first thing that causes me to question this, is the general design of it, which is more of a RAI assessment. From what I can tell, wish’s non-spell replicating punishment is meant to be a limit and punishment to keep players from breaking the game with repeated and frequent uses of wish to reshape the world and break every other rule of the game with a solid mechanical effect that doesn’t put the whole weight of that limitation on the GM’s shoulders.

From this perspective, using wish to resurrect someone killed by a spell that explicitly tells them that they have to use wish (or another 9th level resurrection spell) to resurrect someone is a fully intended system in the game, and thus should not be subjected to wish’s punishment for "trying to break the game"

The RAW argument for the resurrection not triggering the punishment is that, if the person has died within the last 10 days, the spell Reincarnate only requires you touch a piece of them (resurrection does not have the "piece of them" option), which the dust left behind by disintegrate could be argued to be, and the a new body is generated for them. Wish was used to replicate the spell. Therefore you are meeting the requirements of disintegrate (wish) and the requirements of the non-punishing wish (replicating a spell) and the requirements of Reincarnate (touching a piece of the body). So you should not have a chance to lose wish.

The argument for it not working is pretty straight forward. You are casting wish, invoking the text of the disintegrate spell, not replicating a spell of level 8 or less.

Also, this could seem like it is stepping on the toes of True resurrection. However True resurrection has a much longer timeframe, does not change the character’s race, and does not require the party to pick up all the dust if they can’t cast wish before a strong gust of wind picks up. It also only works to counteract disintegrate or other spells with the same effect in the same way that true resurrection does, it does not replace other reasons that true resurrection could be necessary, such as the body being taken out of the party’s reach.

Reincarnate(Relevant):

You touch a dead Humanoid or a piece of a dead Humanoid. Provided that the creature has been dead no longer than 10 days, the spell forms a new adult body for it and then calls the soul to enter that body. If the target’s soul isn’t free or willing to do so, the spell fails.

Wish(Relevant):

The stress of casting this spell to produce any effect other than duplicating another spell weakens you. After enduring that stress, each time you cast a spell until you finish a long rest, you take 1d10 necrotic damage per level of that spell. This damage can’t be reduced or prevented in any way. In addition, your Strength drops to 3, if it isn’t 3 or lower already, for 2d4 days. For each of those days that you spend resting and doing nothing more than light activity, your remaining recovery time decreases by 2 days. Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast wish ever again if you suffer this stress.

Disintegrate (Relevant):

A disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing and carrying, except Magic Items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust. The creature can be restored to life only by means of a True Resurrection or a wish spell.

Personally, if this came up in play, I would not include wish’s punishment due to the first paragraph, however with the benefit of foresight, I am seeking a more informed answer.

D&D 5e does a fiend drop any items carried when it is killed and returned to Avernus?

I had a bearded devil carrying some keys that would open a jail cell, tied to his belt and was slain. My question is, does it drop the keys and can be retrieved by my players or would they go with it back to Avernus?

I am not too concerned if I have to make my own ruling but if this has been answered somewhere I would prefer to use that rule.

Many Thanks.

Will revivify work on a creature killed by Extract Brain?

Mind flayers (Monster Manual, p. 222) have the Extract Brain action:

Extract Brain. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one incapacitated humanoid grappled by the mind flayer. Hit: The target takes 55 (10d10) piercing damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 hit points, the mind flayer kills the target by extracting and devouring its brain.

If a mind flayer kills a creature with their Extract Brain action, will revivify return the creature to life as normal?

Does a size large or larger creature killed by Negative Energy Flood rise as a medium sized zombie?

The spell Negative Energy Flood (XGtE pg. 163) states:

A target killed by this damage rises up as a zombie at the start of your next turn.

And also,

Statistics for the zombie are in the Monster Manual.

This seems to imply that the creature killed rises as a zombie with exactly the statistics stated in the Monster Manual.

If I kill a gargantuan (or anything larger than medium) creature with Negative Energy Flood, does it rise as a size medium zombie?

If Tiamat is killed in the Nine Hells, does she die permanently?

The entry on devils (p. 68) in the Monster Manual states the following:

“Devils that die in the Nine Hells are destroyed forever – a fate that even Asmodeus fears.”

This makes it clear that not even archdevils or gods are exempt from this rule, and even a god that dies in the Nine Hells has no chance of coming back. My question is, does this apply to Tiamat as well? Though she was not originally a devil, and is technically a dragon god, she once ruled Avernus. This gave her the title of at least Archfiend, and an old article (“Leomund’s Tiny Hut: Rearranging and Redefining the Mighty Dragon” by Lenard Lakofka) says that she was an Archdevil.

It’s possible that being given this role technically made her a devil. Something similar happened to Zariel, who was previously a solar, but was definitely turned into a devil when she declared her loyalty to Asmodeus and given rule of Avernus. Still, while Zariel’s stat blocks describes her as a devil, Tiamat’s only describes her as a fiend.

There’s also this quote from the newest adventure “Descent Into Avernus” (p. 126) which suggests this permanent death rule may apply to others outside of devils as well.

Mahadi doesn’t believe in taking unnecessary risks, particularly in the Nine Hells where he can be permanently slain.

Mahadi is not a devil, but a rakshasa, which makes it curious that he can permanently die here.

I realize that as a DM, I can decide which way to go, but I’d like to know which conclusion should be considered canonical. I don’t know if there’s anything in Forgotten Realms lore that I’ve missed that supports one argument more than the other.

Adobe Photoshop has killed my creativity by introducing so much anti-privacy, anti-security, and dumbed-down bloat [closed]

I could pick so many angles to this, but I will focus on a very famous piece of software which has been utterly ruined in recent years: Adobe Photoshop. This is not a rant, but related both to software design and psychology.

These days, it is not possible to install it on a PC without going through a program which they call “Adobe Creative Cloud”. It’s sort of a software “hub” from which you download/manage the actual software you want (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.). It demands that you register an account and log in to use it; if you don’t, you simply cannot install or use Photoshop or any other Adobe software. (Other than some ancient, outdated copy you might still have as a physical box on the shelf.)

Just having that “Creative Cloud” stuff on my computer in the first place gives me the creeps. On top of requiring you to have an Adobe account and log in to it, it aggressively installs itself as a difficult-to-remove icon in File Explorer, and makes itself very “known” overall, with frequent “update notifications” which have been engineered to be difficult to turn off. All you really want as a user is a simple icon that says “Photoshop” which opens Photoshop and nothing else when you click it. There is no benefit to the user to have this intermediate software. Any updates to Photoshop could easily be checked and handled regularly by Photoshop itself. (But even then, I don’t want random updates all the time, anyway.)

When you start Photoshop these days, it shows you this screen:

screenshot

The sheer idea that Photoshop even has the technical ability to transfer my project files (or finished files) away from my computer within itself is deeply unsettling to me, even though they give you this choice/prompt. There’s also something uncomfortable about the language they use, almost as to suggest that “you can (big smile) upload all your private files to our computers”, but (with a stern look) “for all you annoyingly privacy-conscious, un-hip, stone-age neanderthals, I guess we’ll also allow you to save your stupid files onto your stupid computer… maybe. For now. But you lose this and that benefit and remember that the Cloud is perfectly safe and you are really a very stupid and uncool person if you still want control over your files when we at Adobe could Cloud-store them for you instead in a far superior and more convenient manner. And don’t forget how convenient it is to go for the Cloud route and how uncool and old you seem if you pick this other, lame option.”

That’s how I interpret these “nudges” that all software these days seem to use to push the users into a completely insane situation where they store their private files on somebody else’s computer. This is not just about me and my personal situation; it makes my skin crawl to think of all the people out there who simply don’t have a proper understanding about privacy and security (nor could they be expected to), who are constantly being pushed into this extremely scary direction.

Again, even if they never will move to storing your private files by default in Adobe’s close (which is coming… believe me!), just the fact that the program has the technical ability to do this, and could be doing it if I don’t tread very carefully and vacuum all the settings for obscure little checkboxes which make it possible to turn this off, but 99.99% of all users won’t ever know it’s a setting, nor understand why they should go out of their way to disable it…

Over the years, as Photoshop has gotten worse and worse, not just in terms of privacy-destroying misfeatures, but also in terms of sheer “dumbing down” and bloat, for example, those auto-playing pop-up videos showing you how to use the basic tools, I have evaluated numerous alternatives. They are, I regret to inform, all absolute trash. There is no real comparison whatsoever. Things which just intuitively feel natural in Photoshop (most of its features, I just found out by using it and stumbling upon things which just made sense), are completely gone from those so-called “alternatives”. So, in practice, there is just no alternative/choice.

Maybe it sounds silly, but I’ve seriously lost my creativity and will to use software or computers at all in later years, and it definitely cannot be solely attributed to “unrelated depression”. Modern software, made by “modern people”, is designed with a completely different mentality than that which I remember from the “roaring 1990s”, when the PC truly blossomed and looked extremely promising.

Ever since the turn of the millennia, the mentality has increasingly shifted from “making really polished and great software for great people” toward “constantly change everything around randomly for the sake of change while adding enormous amounts of bloat and spying with zero benefit to the user who we deeply disrespect”.

Staying with old versions of software is impossible for obvious security reasons, but also practical ones. Some good new things are introduced, but get drowned in unwanted software cancer.

I no longer feel like having Photoshop on my computer, because it comes with all this garbage, and it increasingly feels like I’m using a dumb terminal and creating stuff “in the Adobe cloud” rather than on my machine. It feels like, at any given moment, that private image I’m editing might fly right away to some computer somewhere.

Maintaining a dedicated virtual machine with another costly Windows 10 license only to turn off its virtual network card seems like insanity. It’s just not practical or affordable. (Those evaluation copies of Windows 10 only work for 90 days and the rearm stuff never works.)

Basically, even if you can figure out some kind of “trick” to work around this, the fact remains that I’m drained of all my energy and creativity just knowing what they are doing. I want to feel like I’m using a fully “offline”, professional-grade, robust, industrial application — not some kind of toy for babies. I thought they had special editions for consumers, but now, even the “real” Photoshop looks ridiculous visually.

Is there any lore to suggest fey or celestials can only be killed on their home planes similar to fiends?

This answer to a different question (about D&D 5e) says:

To open, lets look at a sample of the rules that say you cannot permanently kill such a creature outside of their home plane…

The only way to truly destroy a demon is to seek it in the Abyss and kill it there.

MM 51

Devils that die in the Nine Hells are destroyed forever

MM 67

Only on its native plane can a yugoloth be destroyed permanently

MM 311

Of note: Angels in the 5E MM do NOT have this protection. Weird as it may seem, it is actually easier to kill a Celestial than it is to kill a Fiend.

So, going by the lore available in 5e, celestials can be killed permanently on any plane. Obviously this quote doesn’t mention fey, but I think of celestial, fiends and fey as being grouped together due to certain spells in 5e, such as find familiar or find steed, saying that the spirit can be one of those three.

Anyway, my question is, even though the lore stating that fiends (specifically devils, demons and yugoloths) cannot be killed outside their native planes is well established, is there any lore from any edition of D&D that suggests that the same rules exist for celestials and fey?