PDA

View Full Version : Clerics missing one of their most powerful abilities



Cowdenicus
11-15-2007, 10:49 AM
Are clerics not supposed to be able to cast ressurection on undead to bring them back to life (and as such make them much easier to deal with)?

I was under the impression that it was a legitimate ability in D&D.

Lorien_the_First_One
11-15-2007, 10:53 AM
Are clerics not supposed to be able to cast ressurection on undead to bring them back to life (and as such make them much easier to deal with)?

I was under the impression that it was a legitimate ability in D&D.

I've never seen a DM allow that. The Undead are no longer dead so they can't just be raised, they have to first be removed from their unnatural state. Then if you want to raise the now dead body it would become a possibilty. And maybe I'm confusing versions, but doesn't 3.x still have restrictions on how long you can be dead and still be raised? If so, that means you skellis aren't raisable even after re-deading them.

Kalanth
11-15-2007, 10:56 AM
I agree with Lorien. As a DM I would never allow that trick to work. Undead are a corruption of the original body. In addition, the spirit is given the option of returning to the physical form. If it is a legal move, then I would simply state that all the undead spirits don't want to return to their bodies or that the spirit is in the body until it's disrupted (killed) or completes the business it had left unfinished.

Mad_Bombardier
11-15-2007, 11:02 AM
The DM shouldn't allow it because the rules specifically state that you cannot.
You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected.

You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can’t resurrect constructs or undead creatures.

bnrilfun
11-15-2007, 11:02 AM
I would agree that raising undead should not work, however in retrospect should that not then cause damage to undead? That might be interesting if it did.

Mad_Bombardier
11-15-2007, 11:05 AM
I would agree that raising undead should not work, however in retrospect should that not then cause damage to undead? That might be interesting if it did.That's what Heal is for. ;)

Cowdenicus
11-15-2007, 11:09 AM
That's what Heal is for. ;)

Aye, but since Undead are overly inflated hp wise in DDO......

Impaqt
11-15-2007, 11:10 AM
Clerics missing one of their most powerful abilities.

Yes, as a matter of fact, we are missing our Domains.....

If we have any complaint left about clerics, thats it....

I would of loved to play with your DM :)

Mad_Bombardier
11-15-2007, 11:15 AM
Aye, but since Undead are overly inflated hp wise in DDO......He just asked for Resurrect to cause damage instead of killing. I replied that's what Heal is for. Inflated HP has nothing to do with it.

Decent WIS for casting + Empower Healing + Superior Devotion/Potency + Life Magic = 399 damage to Undead (1097 on a crit). That's pretty much gonna drop to 1 HP most non-boss undead in the game. So, I'm not sure what the problem is... :confused:

Twerpp
11-15-2007, 11:54 AM
Yes, as a matter of fact, we are missing our Domains.....

If we have any complaint left about clerics, thats it....

I would of loved to play with your DM :)

Cleric Domains would rock, there is so much in this game that would make this work extremely well too.

Gothic
11-15-2007, 12:11 PM
The DM shouldn't allow it because the rules specifically state that you cannot.

According to these stated rules, shouldn't warforged not be allowed to be raised?

Lorien_the_First_One
11-15-2007, 12:14 PM
According to these stated rules, shouldn't warforged not be allowed to be raised?

The Eberon campaign setting rules modify the norm to include WF in most spell effects as if they were living creatures.

Laith
11-15-2007, 12:40 PM
nm

Mad_Bombardier
11-15-2007, 12:51 PM
The Eberon campaign setting rules modify the norm to include WF in most spell effects as if they were living creatures.Yup! Because WF are living creatures. Whether or not they have a soul is debatable, but they are most definitely "alive."

ccheath776
11-15-2007, 01:09 PM
Are clerics not supposed to be able to cast ressurection on undead to bring them back to life (and as such make them much easier to deal with)?

I was under the impression that it was a legitimate ability in D&D.

This is what undeath to death is.

In theory you could undeath to death something and then raise it.
But the corruption of the body would be so massive, if the spirit did decide to accept the res they would return to basically a rotting corpse.

lenric
11-15-2007, 01:12 PM
"Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead."

That is quoted from the undead subtype description in the monstrous manual for dnd. So actually yes, Resurrection can in fact ressurect the undead creatures. I found this quite useful as a plot hook in my campaign as a DM when I required my PC's to Resurrect a local undead creature rather than kill it.. It does require some sort of will save which is in the Players handbook i'm sure under Resurrection because the undead are probably unwilling although many of them are living such a tortured existence as undead that unless they are under the direct control of a master I would assume most undead would be more than willing to become normal again and essentially have a second chance at life. So this would be a pretty sweet thing to have in DDO although I'm not sure how it would work in the matter of the newly resurrected person and whether or not they are still your enemy. Having brought someone back from the tortured existence of undead they might act as a summoned creature fighting with you for some time before dissapearing altogether or something along those lines.

lenric
11-15-2007, 01:21 PM
The DM shouldn't allow it because the rules specifically state that you cannot.
Resurrection
You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected.

Although after referencing the players handbook these 2 quotes hold true. So however the monster manual describes the process is different than how the players handbook describes the process...This seems to be an issue of inconsistency of dnd itself. hehe

MysticTheurge
11-15-2007, 01:22 PM
"Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead."

Hooray for random contradictions.

The D&D 3.5 FAQ says:


Are undead and/or deathless considered dead for the
purposes of resurrection spells? For example, could a 2,600-
year-old lich (such as Vol from the Eberron Campaign
Setting) be resurrected normally, because she was made
into a lich 2,600 years ago, or would a 260th-level cleric be
required?
Ah, if only it were that easy to defeat a lich, a creature of
such great power! But no—the PHB (page 272) description of
resurrection states: “constructs, elementals, outsiders, and
undead creatures can’t be resurrected.” Still, I would like to
meet that 260th-level cleric. bonuses, and so on.

So I'm inclined to go with what's stated in the spell description. Generally speaking you ought to do this anyway. The rule of "primary sources" says that when two statements contradict each other use the source that is more primary for the rule in question. PHB is specifically listed as being the primary source for spells.

lenric
11-15-2007, 01:29 PM
Hooray for random contradictions.

The D&D 3.5 FAQ says:



So I'm inclined to go with what's stated in the spell description. Generally speaking you ought to do this anyway. The rule of "primary sources" says that when two statements contradict each other use the source that is more primary for the rule in question. PHB is specifically listed as being the primary source for spells.

Hehe, while the players handbook is the primary source for spells shouldn't the monster manual be the primary place for characteristics of monsters when referring to how certain things will effect them..haha I dunno, at this point in pnp I would take it as a case to case event on whether or not I'll allow it. If it is quite obvious say an unhappy ghost is haunting a warehouse and asks you to release him from his eternal torture and you happen to be able to use a resurrection then I'd allow it, but to use the lich example MT just gave I would not allow it in a case like that. As far ass DDO is concerned with the core rulebooks contradicting themselves I would just prefer they leave the spell as is for now. :)

MysticTheurge
11-15-2007, 01:43 PM
Hehe, while the players handbook is the primary source for spells shouldn't the monster manual be the primary place for characteristics of monsters when referring to how certain things will effect them..

No. It should be the primary source for monster statistics, characteristics and abilities. But it's a secondary source when it comes to how other things affect monsters. The primary source for those things would be where ever those things are detailed. For spells, that's the PHB.

Steven
11-15-2007, 01:46 PM
Depending on which monster manual you are looking at would change the rules. The first Monster Manuel is still under 3.0 rules.

MysticTheurge
11-15-2007, 01:50 PM
The first Monster Manuel is still under 3.0 rules.

No. MM(I) was updated for 3.5.

Spookydodger
11-15-2007, 01:53 PM
Besides, normally raise dead and whatnot takes minutes to cast, no? How could it be used in the heat of battle in Paper and Pencil? :D

TunrikRylogar
11-15-2007, 01:57 PM
The Rule of Specificity states that when two rules contradict each other, the more specific rule overrules the more general rule. The spell descriptions for specific spells should overrule the general description of all undead creatures. Of course, I could make a case that both rules are very specific, but...

When the MM descriptions note that undead, constructs, and outsiders are not subject to raise dead and ressurection, it means that the creature cannot be brought back to life using those spells. Suppose, for instance, you are playing a vampire and you get yourself killed. Your party cannot use ressurection to return you to life as a vampire.

The spell description notes that the spells will cause an undead to revert back to its living form if the spell works, but this is not the same as the spell 'working on the creature.' The spell will not return the undead creature to unlife after it is destroyed. However, it will allow the base creature to return to life. So, if you are a vampire and get destroyed, your party can cast ressurection on you and (provided all other requirements of the spell are met), you will return to life as your pre-vampire you. Theoretically, if your soul is willing, you don't even have to wait to be destroyed.

The reason is because undead, constructs, and outsides do not have souls that move on to the outer plains (or Dollurh) and cannot be recalled. A vampire has no soul. The soul that occupied the body is gone and malevolent magic has animated the body. Now, we could metaphysical here and try to determine what remains behind to leave the vampire with its memories and class abilities, but the point remains the same.

A side note: Warforged are not constructs. They are a distinct type of creature called a living construct that is seperate from constructs (as are deathless and undead). The fact that they can be ressurected could be used to prove that warforged have souls, but don't tell the Silver Flame that. Thrane still isn't so keen on them.

Mad_Bombardier
11-15-2007, 02:06 PM
"Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead."

That is quoted from the undead subtype description in the monstrous manual for dnd. So actually yes, Resurrection can in fact ressurect the undead creatures.They are slightly contradictory but do go hand in hand. In my attempt to be concise, I left off the preceding sentence in each quote. Resurrect and True Resurrection say that you can destroy the undead creature and then resurrect the former person into the now empty body. But, you cannot use Resurrection first. The creature is compelled to undeath, blocking efforts to reunite soul with body. It, therefore, must first be "killed"/returned to death before the soul can be Resurrected. The Undead Monster Type should say, "These spells turn destroyed undead back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead."

You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected.
You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. This spell can also resurrect elementals or outsiders, but it can’t resurrect constructs or undead creatures.

TunrikRylogar
11-15-2007, 02:37 PM
Thanks. That is what I was trying to say, but you said it better, Mad.

MysticTheurge
11-15-2007, 02:52 PM
A side note: Warforged are not constructs. They are a distinct type of creature called a living construct that is seperate from constructs (as are deathless and undead). The fact that they can be ressurected could be used to prove that warforged have souls, but don't tell the Silver Flame that. Thrane still isn't so keen on them.

To be clear, Warforged absolutely are constructs. They have the Construct Type.

They do, however, also have the Living Construct Subtype, which alters a lot of the rules that generally apply to constructs.

But they still are constructs.

DSL
11-15-2007, 03:06 PM
I've never seen a DM allow that. The Undead are no longer dead so they can't just be raised, they have to first be removed from their unnatural state. Then if you want to raise the now dead body it would become a possibilty. And maybe I'm confusing versions, but doesn't 3.x still have restrictions on how long you can be dead and still be raised? If so, that means you skellis aren't raisable even after re-deading them.


I agree with Lorien. As a DM I would never allow that trick to work. Undead are a corruption of the original body. In addition, the spirit is given the option of returning to the physical form. If it is a legal move, then I would simply state that all the undead spirits don't want to return to their bodies or that the spirit is in the body until it's disrupted (killed) or completes the business it had left unfinished.


I have both seen it and allowed it, under the old 1st and 2nd ED rules. Raise dead worked pretty much like a Slay Living against undead, while Ressurection became the undead's Destruction spell. Of course, this was also when some spells were reversible, so these were just reversed versions of their standard form. It made a Rod of Ressurection a potent weapon against undead (if you were willing to burn valuable charges). Of course, the best use I ever saw of a Rod of Ressurection was when my players were facing a high-level barbarian with nearly unhittable AC by using it on the barbarian's gold dragonhide armor, made from a Great Wyrm gold dragon that he had personally killed. The barbarian lost.

MysticTheurge
11-15-2007, 03:11 PM
Of course, the best use I ever saw of a Rod of Ressurection was when my players were facing a high-level barbarian with nearly unhittable AC by using it on the barbarian's gold dragonhide armor, made from a Great Wyrm gold dragon that he had personally killed. The barbarian lost.

Now that's totally legit.

The FAQ makes that clear (using that very example).

ahpook
11-15-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally Posted by DSL View Post
Of course, the best use I ever saw of a Rod of Ressurection was when my players were facing a high-level barbarian with nearly unhittable AC by using it on the barbarian's gold dragonhide armor, made from a Great Wyrm gold dragon that he had personally killed. The barbarian lost.


Now that's totally legit.

The FAQ makes that clear (using that very example).

Ah cr*p. And I just got the white dragon armor for my Paladin. :)

muffinlad
11-15-2007, 05:52 PM
I DO think there is an under-lying issue here, and that is to me, Clerics are VERY substandard when dealing with most undead in this game. Turn UNDEAD, unless maxed with the right items, stats, enhancements and feats, has very poor impact. Yet Clerics should be the foremost killers of undead we have (baring the introduction of domains that take that a different direction).

When you consider the fact that HUGE numbers of undead make up the Stormreach setting, the fact that Clerics don't really have the spells to compensate to take out undead makes it frustrating for me and other players of clerics in the game.

New spells, that focus on AOE/DOT (A firewall type spell that only takes out undead), or even a Finger of Re-Death/Slay Unliving/Banish to Dolurrth would be very useful, and make much more sense to me than the current, and rather faulty IMHO, setup.

Regs,

muffinfather

MysticTheurge
11-15-2007, 05:59 PM
I DO think there is an under-lying issue here, and that is to me, Clerics are VERY substandard when dealing with most undead in this game.

Yet Clerics should be the foremost killers of undead we have (baring the introduction of domains that take that a different direction).

Indeed, I find this upsetting as well.

ErgonomicCat
11-15-2007, 06:01 PM
I DO think there is an under-lying issue here, and that is to me, Clerics are VERY substandard when dealing with most undead in this game. Turn UNDEAD, unless maxed with the right items, stats, enhancements and feats, has very poor impact. Yet Clerics should be the foremost killers of undead we have (baring the introduction of domains that take that a different direction).

When you consider the fact that HUGE numbers of undead make up the Stormreach setting, the fact that Clerics don't really have the spells to compensate to take out undead makes it frustrating for me and other players of clerics in the game.

New spells, that focus on AOE/DOT (A firewall type spell that only takes out undead), or even a Finger of Re-Death/Slay Unliving/Banish to Dolurrth would be very useful, and make much more sense to me than the current, and rather faulty IMHO, setup.

Regs,

muffinfather

Well, to be fair, maximized healing == maximized undead killing....

MysticTheurge
11-15-2007, 06:04 PM
Well, to be fair, maximized healing == maximized undead killing....

No. One-shot (as opposed to Persistent) damage spells do not == anything killing in DDO.

neoanderthal
11-15-2007, 06:18 PM
Resurrection and True Resurrection will all work on undead in PnP 3.x DnD, provided that the target is willing to return to life, and the undead is first destroyed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm).

Raise dead doesn't work in this fashion...

honkuimushi
11-16-2007, 09:01 AM
As DSL said, I remember using it in 1st and second edition games. Again it was probably connected to the ability to reverse spells. Also, Final Fantasy allowed the use of Life to kill undead in several of those games. That may be why the idea is so common.

kensihin_Himura
11-16-2007, 09:57 AM
But first you have to defeat whatever is bringing them back from the dead, which means going to have to destroy the undead your trying to bring back to get at the evil.