What's the opinion on Revivify

[JNAProductions]

But sometimes, I DO want that threat - and revivify really kinda prevents that.

It really doesn't.

Fight lasts more than one minute? You're wasting an action to bring someone back with a single HP-good chance they'll hit 0 before their turn even comes up, and even if they don't, you traded a 3rd level slot and your turn for another PC to get one turn.
The body gets dragged away? Say, by a hungry animal. You're fighting a pack of wolves, well, once they have food, they'll grab it and start retreating.

But the big thing? You lose the fight. If some PCs manage to flee, whoever got left behind is dead.

[Theodoxus]

In 3e -10 was dead, but there was no "breaker" like there is with death saving throws. If you were at 17 and took 27 damage, you died.

I remember being at low hit points being tense - yes there was a 10 hit point buffer, but being at very low hit points was scary - you're in one shot range!

5e is not like that at all. Being at 7 or 12 hp barely matters; you have so many more chances to not die.

Now I have to say, in my time playing 5e, I've gotten away from "the only outcome that matters is life or death." There's lots of ways to have tense, difficult combats without death being the most present threat.

But sometimes, I DO want that threat - and revivify really kinda prevents that.

Our houserule for 3.PF was -Con score instead of -10. It helped a bit with the insta-gib.

It really doesn't.

Fight lasts more than one minute? You're wasting an action to bring someone back with a single HP-good chance they'll hit 0 before their turn even comes up, and even if they don't, you traded a 3rd level slot and your turn for another PC to get one turn.
The body gets dragged away? Say, by a hungry animal. You're fighting a pack of wolves, well, once they have food, they'll grab it and start retreating.

But the big thing? You lose the fight. If some PCs manage to flee, whoever got left behind is dead.

Given my play history, it's the primary reason I stick to Life. I must play with morons - or maybe I'm the cause and they only play like morons because they know I can pull them out of a TPK... either way, at least once a level, we were finding ourselves way out of our comfort zone and a few bad rolls away from a TPK. Preserve Life has saved our collective bacon more than any other spell or ability. And then once Clerics officially got Aura of Vitality, requests for Bless stopped... But then I guess my group is lucky that I actually find being a heal-bot++ the best playstyle for me.

[RSP]

Also, it’s generally a conscious choice of whether to get, or keep diamonds.

Sometimes (rarely) the PCs decide the value is worth cashing the gems in, sometimes (more often) they’ll decide “hey <cleric name here> has Revivify, maybe we should keep some of these…”

But choosing to get/keep the components is a (small) factor.

[Caffinicus]

Yo-Yo healing, including spells like revivify, is how 5e is designed. My general advice is "Lean into the system. Don't fight the system". There's plenty of RPGs with healing systems that work differently, but if you're going to do 5e, do so with gusto.

I disagree. 5e is too popular, and it's too difficult to find players for other games, to just ignore problems you have with it or play another game (at least easily). Better IMO to come up with houserules that work for your table.

[Segev]

I disagree. 5e is too popular, and it's too difficult to find players for other games, to just ignore problems you have with it or play another game (at least easily). Better IMO to come up with houserules that work for your table.

I would argue that the advice is good even if you are house ruling. Don't try to fight the design in nickle and dime ways. 5e becomes almost unusable lethal if you aren't very careful how you increase that lethality.

That said, removing revivify probably won't hurt anything if you really want to.

[Pex]

The DM annoyance of the spell is directionally proportional to how much players use it as an excuse to do stupid things because their character will just come back if it goes wrong. When players take care to not have their character die in the first place, never wanting it to happen at all, then the existence of the spell is a . . . godsend when the unfortunate happens and a PC dies anyway because the dice hate them. These players tend to be engaged in the game world and game itself. When players treat the spell as a cost of doing business, just mark off 300 gp of diamonds and move on, they tend to treat the game as a glorified board game of seeing what they can get away with. Hyperbole, maybe, but only insofar the DM is not treating the players as his enemies. DMs who hate their players hate the spell. I don't mean literally hate, but the DM is trying to win D&D and feels he has done so when a PC dies.

[Skrum]

It really doesn't.

Fight lasts more than one minute? You're wasting an action to bring someone back with a single HP-good chance they'll hit 0 before their turn even comes up, and even if they don't, you traded a 3rd level slot and your turn for another PC to get one turn.
The body gets dragged away? Say, by a hungry animal. You're fighting a pack of wolves, well, once they have food, they'll grab it and start retreating.

But the big thing? You lose the fight. If some PCs manage to flee, whoever got left behind is dead.

How many fights do you have that last longer than a minute?! That's 10 rounds, incredibly long by 5e standards. Most fights are in the 2-4 range. Occasionally there will be a crazy one that goes 6ish. I think I can remember once that a fight went 10+ rounds (and someone actually had died, so the revivify limit mattered).

The point is with all that conditional stuff you're listing - yes the DM can do that. But it pushes the DM into "I have to intentionally kill your character, or at least take specific actions that will lead to your death." It's not my favorite dynamic; I'd prefer to just throw hard fights at the players and let the dice fall where they may.

[LudicSavant]

A fight may not last longer than a minute, but there are foes that will act to damage or abduct bodies, that can inject that sort of tension without making it an always on thing -- essentially, a variety of experiences.

[KorvinStarmast]

The DM annoyance of the spell is directionally proportional to how much players use it as an excuse to do stupid things because their character will just come back if it goes wrong. When players take care to not have their character die in the first place, never wanting it to happen at all, then the existence of the spell is a . . . godsend when the unfortunate happens and a PC dies anyway because the dice hate them. These players tend to be engaged in the game world and game itself. When players treat the spell as a cost of doing business, just mark off 300 gp of diamonds and move on, they tend to treat the game as a glorified board game of seeing what they can get away with. Hyperbole, maybe, but only insofar the DM is not treating the players as his enemies. DMs who hate their players hate the spell. I don't mean literally hate, but the DM is trying to win D&D and feels he has done so when a PC dies.

I was with you all the way up to the last sentence, but I will admit I've seen a few DMs cast from that mold. Been years since I played with one, though.

[Witty Username]

I throw Revivify in with yo yo healing because of how it cheapens going to zero, and changes the meta of combat. I just can't get myself to "oh yeah, Revivify is totally improving the game experience."

Go AD&D on it, make the PC roll a DC 10-15 con save or immediately die (physical related stress death was brutal).

I don't mind revivify. The diamonds are no joke cost wise and ideally it should be played around some by enemies, it needs a relatively complete body to work as well if you are so interested. My only issue is it makes the other resurrection spells kinda bad since 1 minute is pretty forgiving.

I think it was a 5th level spell in 3.5, I wouldn't be against it moving back up. Also, for yo-yo, I think the 3.5 version brought the target back to -1 hp, so it wouldn't bring someone back into the fight, just keep them around for next session.

You could experiment with it returning them to life at 0 HP, that way the death and recovery would still be a significant concern without outright removal.

Also, if you don't like it, cut it and see if it works fine, if it doesn't hurt table fun have at it.

[Skrum]

Go AD&D on it, make the PC roll a DC 10-15 con save or immediately die (physical related stress death was brutal).

I don't mind revivify. The diamonds are no joke cost wise and ideally it should be played around some by enemies, it needs a relatively complete body to work as well if you are so interested. My only issue is it makes the other resurrection spells kinda bad since 1 minute is pretty forgiving.

I think it was a 5th level spell in 3.5, I wouldn't be against it moving back up. Also, for yo-yo, I think the 3.5 version brought the target back to -1 hp, so it wouldn't bring someone back into the fight, just keep them around for next session.

You could experiment with it returning them to life at 0 HP, that way the death and recovery would still be a significant concern without outright removal.

Also, if you don't like it, cut it and see if it works fine, if it doesn't hurt table fun have at it.

I'm not running anything ATM; this was just a question, wanted to know what people thought. I am (very slowly) putting together a game idea, and yeah, revivify will not be available lol.

[stoutstien]

I'm not running anything ATM; this was just a question, wanted to know what people thought. I am (very slowly) putting together a game idea, and yeah, revivify will not be available lol.

Something to keep in mind is removing it makes the GMs job harder.

No matter the circumstances, if someone dies it's because the GM messed up. so while it's tempting to increase tension by removing these types of features you also need to have a very good eye matching players skill levels in multiple areas and be dialed in with your ability to accurately describe the level of risk/danger they facing. (Can you describe the difference between an adult and ancient dragon without using numbers?)

If you do set up a game with death is more permanent then be prepared for two types of play styles.

The first is the PC mill where they don't heavily invest in their PC, or anything else for that matter, because the likelihood of needing to start over is too great.

The second is game play will slow way down. The risk of moving to quickly out weighs the risk of running out of time. Think of the 10ft pole trap checking issue but for everything.

[DracoKnight]

That really does sound like a badass and thematic way to deal with resurrection. My first concern, especially with the longer underworlds, is the matter of what the player of the dead character is going to be...

.... Ohhhhhhhh....
That does sound awesome.

Do different patron deities send different Psychopomps or is the Psychopomp a fixture of the underworld?

The Psychopomp is a fixture of the Underworld. He has a name, he just hasn’t given it to a living mortal in centuries. There are many psychopomps, but only this one really works with dead player characters. Mostly out of DM convenience, so I don’t need like 50 NPC personalities ready to hand to the player with the sheet. But the players latched onto the fact that it’s weird that it’s always him, regardless of place on the timeline or the party they play, and how he doesn’t give out his name, so there MUST be some great mystery with him.

And so now, I think, there must be some great mystery with him. I just don’t know what it is yet.

[Blatant Beast]

No matter the circumstances, if someone dies it's because the GM messed up.

I disagree with this premise.

[Unoriginal]

No matter the circumstances, if someone dies it's because the GM messed up.

I reject that premise, strongly.

I would never play with a DM who thinks that.

[Keltest]

I reject that premise, strongly.

I would never play with a DM who thinks that.

Ditto. PC death should ideally be rare, unless youre playing a meatgrinder game on purpose, but it should absolutely happen sometimes, or at least be at risk of happening.

[DracoKnight]

No matter the circumstances, if someone dies it's because the GM messed up.

No. There’s so many different reasons that a PC could die, and only a few of them rest on the DM.

For one example that’s just completely unambiguous: bad dice rolls. Sometimes it’s just not your night. And if you can’t roll above a 4 on the d20 and the DM can’t roll under a 15 on the d20, that’s not the DMs fault, but it will probably end up with a dead PC.

Or sometimes, a player just pulls a stupid stunt and it gets their character killed. Perhaps there’s a bottle of thick liquid on the table and the Wizard says “hey, wait! I can identify that.” But the Rogue ignores them and chugs the whole thing. It wasn’t a potion, but Purple Worm Poison. The DM intended it to be a cool, one-off boss killer item. But because the Rogue chugged it, and they’re 3rd level, the Rogue dies outright after damage is rolled. Is that the DM’s fault? No. The Rogue’s teammate had the tools to assess the threat, and the Rogue ignored them. Should the bottle have suddenly not been Purple Worm Poison, because the Rogue drank it?? It’s certainly within the DM’s power to make that change. But it would be pretty disrespectful, IMO, if the DM changed it purely to keep the Rogue alive. Part of respecting your players means giving them the space to make strong, but bad, choices, and then playing out the consequences.

I tend to be suspicious of statements and questions that involve the words “always” or “never”, because all it takes is one exception for the entire thing to be null. I’ve provided two exceptions, one of which was even from my own game.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think that the point he is making is that with the DM removing revivify as a seat belt option, death cannot be mitigated until about 9th level while with revivify it can sometimes be mitigated at 5th. Any permanent death from level 5-8 that can't have revivify there as a seat belt is the DMs fault.

That the dice were fickle, or the players made a sub optimal choice, etc, is still within the realm of chance, but removing that seat belt is 100% on the GM.

[stoutstien]

I disagree with this premise.

I reject that premise, strongly.

I would never play with a DM who thinks that.

Ditto. PC death should ideally be rare, unless youre playing a meatgrinder game on purpose, but it should absolutely happen sometimes, or at least be at risk of happening.

No. There’s so many different reasons that a PC could die, and only a few of them rest on the DM.

For one example that’s just completely unambiguous: bad dice rolls. Sometimes it’s just not your night. And if you can’t roll above a 4 on the d20 and the DM can’t roll under a 15 on the d20, that’s not the DMs fault, but it will probably end up with a dead PC.

Or sometimes, a player just pulls a stupid stunt and it gets their character killed. Perhaps there’s a bottle of thick liquid on the table and the Wizard says “hey, wait! I can identify that.” But the Rogue ignores them and chugs the whole thing. It wasn’t a potion, but Purple Worm Poison. The DM intended it to be a cool, one-off boss killer item. But because the Rogue chugged it, and they’re 3rd level, the Rogue dies outright after damage is rolled. Is that the DM’s fault? No. The Rogue’s teammate had the tools to assess the threat, and the Rogue ignored them. Should the bottle have suddenly not been Purple Worm Poison, because the Rogue drank it?? It’s certainly within the DM’s power to make that change. But it would be pretty disrespectful, IMO, if the DM changed it purely to keep the Rogue alive. Part of respecting your players means giving them the space to make strong, but bad, choices, and then playing out the consequences.

I tend to be suspicious of statements and questions that involve the words “always” or “never”, because all it takes is one exception for the entire thing to be null. I’ve provided two exceptions, one of which was even from my own game.

Going to zero is not PC 'death' in the sense that I'm referring to. Death is your character is no more with zero chance of being recovered.
There are about 30 odd different layers of protection to prevent the from happening for a reason and you have to willfully ignore to kill a PC.

Even the "the player did something stupid" set up still needs to go through the GM to even happen let alone lead to death.

I tend to keep a pretty high kill count but none of them are done by accident. I pulled the trigger and if *anyone* would disagree with that it was warranted then it would be my fault. It doesn't really matter if it was the dice, the player, or my choices that actually did the final blow because none of that happens automatically. You used the dice. You put the unlabeled vial in the room. You allowed the player to act in a way that bypasses all those safer points.

[DracoKnight]

Going to zero is not PC 'death' in the sense that I'm referring to. Death is your character is no more with zero chance of being recovered.
There are about 30 odd different layers of protection to prevent the from happening for a reason and you have to willfully ignore to kill a PC.

Even the "the player did something stupid" set up still needs to go through the GM to even happen let alone lead to death.

I tend to keep a pretty high kill count but none of them are done by accident. I pulled the trigger and if *anyone* would disagree with that it was warranted then it would be my fault. It doesn't really matter if it was the dice, the player, or my choices that actually did the final blow because none of that happens automatically. You used the dice. You put the unlabeled vial in the room. You allowed the player to act in a way that bypasses all those safer points.

Okay so after reading this, I have deleted my previous post where I doubled-down on what I said.

I think, now, that we don’t disagree. I think what was messing with my head, was my general attitude when I DM is “I don’t want to kill you, this Mindflayer wants to kill you,” to quote Matt Colville. I’m on the player’s side, but I also tend to set up the world in a way that I think is logical, and then let the players go. So if the scenario plays out and a PC dies, I don’t see it as me killing them, even though, that is literally what is happening, you’re correct.

I think that, a big part of this puzzle is player perception: does it feel like what happened is True, or does it feel like the DM was targeting their character unfairly. I try to stick to what feels True. Which… I guess is why that initial statement rubbed me the wrong way.

My apologies for dogpiling you, and thank you for the grace and patience of your response.

[stoutstien]

Okay so after reading this, I have deleted my previous post where I doubled-down on what I said.

I think, now, that we don’t disagree. I think what was messing with my head, was my general attitude when I DM is “I don’t want to kill you, this Mindflayer wants to kill you,” to quote Matt Colville. I’m on the player’s side, but I also tend to set up the world in a way that I think is logical, and then let the players go. So if the scenario plays out and a PC dies, I don’t see it as me killing them, even though, that is literally what is happening, you’re correct.

I think that, a big part of this puzzle is player perception: does it feel like what happened is True, or does it feel like the DM was targeting their character unfairly. I try to stick to what feels True. Which… I guess is why that initial statement rubbed me the wrong way.

My apologies for dogpiling you, and thank you for the grace and patience of your response.

No worries. The shock of the statement is semi-intentional because it makes people lock in.

I also don't tend to hold my punches and if a PC dies that is what happens but I also realize that if they disagree with me I don't have a leg to stand on.

When GMs are looking at removing features that allow death to be avoided on some level in an attempt to make death more important, you have to make sure you don't go too far and make it meaningless.

[Skrum]

I also don't tend to hold my punches and if a PC dies that is what happens but I also realize that if they disagree with me I don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm not so sure this is a healthy or helpful way to think about DMing. Why does blame have to be assigned? If I was DMing a game, and someone's character died and their response was to point the accusatory finger, it's highly like that my reaction would be to not want to play with them any more. I would hope that they would extend me the good faith that no, I didn't seek out their character's death, but providing challenge is part of the DM's job and sometimes that challenge includes character death. No one's at fault, it's just part of the game.

I have seen what happens when people's reaction to something going "badly" in a DnD game is to find the culprit and confront them. It's super poisonous.

[Unoriginal]

Going to zero is not PC 'death' in the sense that I'm referring to. Death is your character is no more with zero chance of being recovered.
There are about 30 odd different layers of protection to prevent the from happening for a reason and you have to willfully ignore to kill a PC.

Even the "the player did something stupid" set up still needs to go through the GM to even happen let alone lead to death.

I tend to keep a pretty high kill count but none of them are done by accident. I pulled the trigger and if *anyone* would disagree with that it was warranted then it would be my fault. It doesn't really matter if it was the dice, the player, or my choices that actually did the final blow because none of that happens automatically. You used the dice. You put the unlabeled vial in the room. You allowed the player to act in a way that bypasses all those safer points.

The DM isn't at fault for DMing the game.

"Responsibility" is not the same as "fault".

Of course the DM is responsible for what killed the PC. They're the one making the game mechanics happens, and the one who chooses which mechanic happens.

Why, the DM can even decide that a six-armed angel of justice shows up at the last second, heal the PC to full, and kill the bad guy responsible for the threat all in one action, if the DM wants to. It's in their power.

That does not mean a PC dying is a "fault".

[Segev]

Death is also not the only consequence with meaning in the game. In fact, it is one of the least interesting consequences for failure and bad decisions that can happen. That doesn't mean it should never be on the table, but it does mean that you shouldn't stress, as a DM, if death is not something players seem to fear (due to its rarity).

Consequences of failure, of poor decisions, of guessing wrong or the dice betraying you are important, but they rest in the stakes of whatever you're doing at the time. To start with death still as a consequence, the death of an NPC the party is protecting can in many ways be more impactful than a PC death, depending on the PC and NPC in question.

Moreover, in a combat encounter where the PCs are trying to break into an enemy lair and guards have caught them at it, the stakes could be much more about keeping those guards from successfully raising the alarm than they are about the PCs surviving the specific fight. Or the fight with the summoner in his tower could be about preventing the summoner from escaping to plague the land again, or to keep him from finishing his ritual to call forth Miska the Wolf-Spider from the deepest prison of the Abyss. Even if the PCs never dip below three-quarters health, they will feel the stakes of the encounter as they strive to thwart the bad guy's attempts to pull off his own goal.

[stoutstien]

The DM isn't at fault for DMing the game.

"Responsibility" is not the same as "fault".

Of course the DM is responsible for what killed the PC. They're the one making the game mechanics happens, and the one who chooses which mechanic happens.

Why, the DM can even decide that a six-armed angel of justice shows up at the last second, heal the PC to full, and kill the bad guy responsible for the threat all in one action, if the DM wants to. It's in their power.

That does not mean a PC dying is a "fault".

You can't have one without the other. If the DM is ultimately responsible for every situation that may kill a PC and usually push the party into those very situations with very little leeway to avoid them, then you are also ultimately causing every instance of death.
You can call it responsible, causing, or faulting but in the end it's the same because you're doing it.

This means when you start going through and removing some of those safety barriers and it leads to less than a positive improvement in gameplay, you can't turn around and blame the players for reacting accordingly. Making the game more deadly has a minimal impact on challenge and that's only for a narrow band of players. You're also messing with the intended design progression where the game actually becomes less deadly the longer you invest into a single character.

[Pex]

As much as risk of character death is a necessary part of the game, so too is it that it's not a requirement. I will question any campaign/DM where the death count/rate per game session is too high. How much is too high? I don't know, but it exists. I can safely say a PC death every game session is too high. A PC death every two game sessions is too high. There exists an X where a PC death every X game sessions is too high but every X + 1 game sessions it's not even though I cannot put in a physical number ink on paper value to X.

It's not all DM malice when the death count is too high. The players may be lacking. It's a published module that's unfairly brutal. The players and DM don't know it's too high that games are not supposed to be like that. However, I will question the DM who boasts about his PC death count and/or makes jokes about them making fun of the player who's sad about it or perhaps worse be indifferent. "Just make another character." It's called empathy. People care about fictional characters. Particular characters in books, tv shows, and movies resonate with the audience such that when the character dies there's an emotional impact. People will mourn, and depending on the character and/or method they will cry out it wasn't deserved. The player will make a new character, but his previous character is not to be dismissed.

Obligatory: But Pex, this is just your opinion. Not everyone plays the game like you nor should they. If they're having fun why is it any of your business? Yes, it is my opinion. That's all I claim it is. I have quit games where the PC death count was too high. Not my cup of tea.

[Unoriginal]

You can't have one without the other. If the DM is ultimately responsible for every situation that may kill a PC and usually push the party into those very situations with very little leeway to avoid them, then you are also ultimately causing every instance of death.

Indeed.The DM is ultimately causing every instance of everything in the game. From the beer on the tavern's counter being refreshingly cold bust foul-tasting to the most dramatic, legend-worthy death.

You can call it responsible, causing, or faulting but in the end it's the same because you're doing it.

Incorrect.

Those words have different meanings. "Fault" means that it is a thing that shouldn't be done and shouldn't have happened.

[Sorinth]

It's not my favourite spell especially since it often feels like a kind of tax on the cleric where they have to devote one of their prepared spells to it and keep track of the material component for the good of the party.

I think the principle of making it easy to bring back a PC is better for the game then not having that means available simply because player engagement is going to suffer if a person has this great idea for a character but then they get killed for whatever reason. It's just normal that they won't be as engaged/excited with the next character if they didn't get to explore their previous one the way they wanted. Like try to imagine playing BG3 for the first time except there's no revivify spell or scroll and just as you start getting invested into one of the companions backstories they die and now you have to take some random hireling instead. It's not going be nearly as engaging/fun.

That said needing a way to bring back PCs doesn't mean it has to be a low level spelll, having to perform some sort of quest/mini-adventure or enter into a bargain with a fiend/celestial/god are also all valid ways. I think the MTG Theros book even talks about having an adventure go to the underworld to bring back a soul that died.

If you want to have consequences for pop up healing style game play use the Lingering Injuries variant in the DMG, although I would recommend modifying the injuries to suit your tastes though. Having characters die permanently just isn't really a good way of raising the stakes/tension of a game.

[Skrum]

As much as risk of character death is a necessary part of the game, so too is it that it's not a requirement. I will question any campaign/DM where the death count/rate per game session is too high. How much is too high? I don't know, but it exists. I can safely say a PC death every game session is too high. A PC death every two game sessions is too high. There exists an X where a PC death every X game sessions is too high but every X + 1 game sessions it's not even though I cannot put in a physical number ink on paper value to X.

Hmm if I had to put a number to it I'd say 15 games? Maybe 20? Depends on how often the group is playing.

It's not all DM malice when the death count is too high. The players may be lacking. It's a published module that's unfairly brutal. The players and DM don't know it's too high that games are not supposed to be like that. However, I will question the DM who boasts about his PC death count and/or makes jokes about them making fun of the player who's sad about it or perhaps worse be indifferent. "Just make another character." It's called empathy. People care about fictional characters. Particular characters in books, tv shows, and movies resonate with the audience such that when the character dies there's an emotional impact. People will mourn, and depending on the character and/or method they will cry out it wasn't deserved. The player will make a new character, but his previous character is not to be dismissed.

Obligatory: But Pex, this is just your opinion. Not everyone plays the game like you nor should they. If they're having fun why is it any of your business? Yes, it is my opinion. That's all I claim it is. I have quit games where the PC death count was too high. Not my cup of tea.

Agreed; like I would play in a meatgrinder, as long as I knew what it was going in. I wouldn't even necessarily put less thought into the character, but I'd want to know what I was signing up for.

My desire is to most of all feel that character death is a possibility. I don't strictly need characters to actually die*. If I sense the DM pulling punches or only running softball combats, I'm gonna get bored that the stakes aren't high enough - like even in a mostly RP game, that in a way puts that much more pressure on the few combats that do happen be appropriately threatening. Otherwise I'm probably not gonna buy in on the presented villain, consequences, etc., are all that bad.

*this is why I don't like Revivify, even as a player. It's very easy to get blase about so-called dangerous enemies or being reduced to zero if I know the [like half the classes can get revivify tbh] has this ready to go.

[Crusher]

Gives it a great "you're not getting their soul from beyond the veil of death, you're fixing the body before the soul got to leave" flavor.

Just had a discussion around this at my (virtual) table tonight. The party just leveled up and the Bard was asking for input on their Magical Secrets spells. The party has no cleric, and people are hesitant to let the Druid Reincarnate them if they die, so they were talking about Revivify. Coincidentally, the party had just found a major magic item that, among other things, parts of it could be used in place of the material components for any Summoning Spell below 9th level.

The discussion turned to "Wait, if Gate is a summoning spell, why isn't Revivify (or Raise Dead, etc) a summoning spell? Aren't they doing the same thing?" Eventually we came to a conclusion that it was repairing the body (or outright recreating it for higher level versions) that made it Necromancy rather than Conjuration. Reuniting the soul with that body is arguably the lesser task, oddly enough.