Talk:Tome of Necromancy (3.5e Sourcebook)
From D&D Wiki
"The fact that undead don't have a Constitution score means that Ghouls can run for exactly zero rounds before they have to make a Con check (that they automatically fail) to continue (and also says it can "run on indefinitely", a base contradiction that makes us sad)."
The above statement needs to be removed. Undead don't need to make endurance checks, this is precisely why they don't have a constitution score.--Oddplume 11:41, 14 February 2009 (MST)
- If you want to make a statement like that, you're going to have to back it up with rules quotes. There's other problems, though, like in a chase when you're supposed to make opposed Constitution checks to see if you can keep pace / overcome the person you're chasing. Undead automatically fail that. Surgo 13:49, 15 February 2009 (MST)
- Ok slick, 3.5 Monster Manual Page 317 under the Undead type listing in the Glossary: "-Immune to any effects that require a fortitude save. (Unless they effect objects or are harmless.)" Same page not too far above that: "-Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution), as well as fatigue and exhaustion effects." Basically the player will get tired first because a Ghast will automatically succeed those saves, not fail them. This is what Immunity is. Now if you're talking about creatures of the same speed moving in close competition, those are Dexterity checks not constitution (Dungeon Master's Guide page 20).--Oddplume 20:29, 24 February 2009 (MST)
- (Same link you posted) "Run A character can’t run for an extended period of time.
- Attempts to run and rest in cycles effectively work out to a hustle."
- Guess what? When the characters stop to take a rest they will be caught. The damned things will be running full speed the entire way with no breaks in between (Which is what Run on indefinitely means). That rule you listed means nothing to undead. It's difficult to outlast something that doesn't have to rest. At this point it would just be DM choice whether or not to make ghasts, ghouls, or whatever quicker undead they have out give up and go home or not. For the "Evasion and Pursuit" rules to come into play the players would have to have a pretty big head start. If not, it'll pretty much end at "overland Movement" rules where it's pretty much good game the instant the living person misses a Constitution check (Whether it became too high or they rolled abysmally low)--Oddplume 09:20, 28 February 2009 (MST)
- How does it mean nothing to undead? I don't see anything that excludes them from that constitution check, which they will fail automatically.
- Also, I went and checked out the undead template and the page about movement again. There's nothing on the page about movement about fatigue and exhaustion effects, or fortitude saves, except for forced march. Everything else is constitution checks (which undead automatically fail). Surgo 10:36, 28 February 2009 (MST)
Why do I have to define "Immunity" for you? (P 310 Monster Manual, under Immunity)- "Immunity: A creature that has immunity to an effect is never harmed (or helped) by that effect. A creature can not suppress immunity in order to receive a beneficial effect." Immunity means they ignore checks for things they are immune to not fail them. (P 312 Monster Manual under nonabilities in Constitution)- "...and automatically fails constitution checks. A creature with no constitution score can not tire and can run indefinitely without tiring. (Unless the creature's description says it can not run.)" Every constitution check related to running involves whether or not the runner gets tired (except for the close paced dex checks), this is why they make constitution checks. Undead don't tire (As noted repeatedly) thus they ignore the checks.
You've taken the "Stuff with no Con score automatically fails Constitution Checks" too far out of context and ignored the last sentence in that section entirely. They explain that little contradiction and exactly why it works. Read over "Run" (P144 Players Guide) and note that while characters rest as a result of failing that check, undead (And constructs or anything else without a con score) do not (Again they don't have to).--Oddplume 04:36, 1 March 2009 (MST)
Just so you know, I love this. Necromancy with flavour! :D I might be building a character using some of this. :D :D --Othtim 13:24, 2 May 2008 (MDT)
- I wish I could claim credit for creating this. I'm just the messenger who posted it. --Genowhirl 21:41, 3 May 2008 (MDT)
i think the Soul Merchant is the coolest of all. hope it dont matter if i'm creating a NPC class using some of his abilities? Hijax 02:09, 6 August 2008 (MDT)
- Go right ahead. I'd like to see it, myself. Genowhirl 21:16, 6 August 2008 (MDT)
Editing + Locking
An IP edited the page, are you ok with this and would it be better if these pages were locked? --Sabre070 19:31, 8 November 2008 (MST)
- They actually added something I've been meaning to add for a while. It's cool if they stay unlocked; there's still better formatting work to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surgo (talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 November 2008 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
- Uh, yeah, I'm the phantom IP editor. I downloaded the Tome pdf from your Wiki user profile, and noticed the Dungeonomicon Reaper was absent, and figured I'd add it to here (although I did think about putting it in the Dungeonomicon itself). Sorry if I raised any alarm bells.188.8.131.52 13:43, 9 November 2008 (MST)
The Economic Necromancer
One of my gaming groups had the classic debate on whether necromancy is always evil or not and we came up with quite an interesting idea: A village lives with a necromancer (or group of necromancers) who use their undead creations to give the townsfolk a life of luxury, letting all the undead do all the work, all that's required is that the townsfolk give up at least two years of their death to serve the village as an undead (like some sort of military) after which served, the undead would be released. Though, should the town need extra protection, the graves would supply "draftees." Criminals would serve longer terms, but it would still be limited to about a century maximum. The zombies would mostly be working the fields, as their rotting flesh (if tended to properly with the right spells, maybe casting purify food and water on the crops/meals) would act as fertilizer for the plants. Shadows would be basic guards, alerting the townsfolk when some evil has been done or if travelers are passing through the town, in which case, the workers would have to be hidden and replaced with the townsfolk. For this reason, the town would have to be out of the way. Besides adventurers the town would have nothing to worry about, unless one of the controllers decided to take over, but simple and regular morality tests (detect alignment) could prevent that for the most part. This set up would not only be ideal for the villagers, but it would also cost a lot less than making a ton of constructs. Another point, since the undead would only be used for basic labor, only a few minor types of undead are needed (ex: skeletons, zombies, shadows) so if you have a few high level necromancers and/or a few helpful necromatic items you'd be able to keep the town in reasonably good shape.
- Considering that all mentioned undead (skeletons, zombies, and shadows) are by their very nature evil, should be enough for the common townspeople to get wiggy and even terrified of, regardless of how easy it made their lives. Aside from the fact that animated dead are not the same person, but a shell of animated flesh and bone. most peopel would frown on desecration of their dead loved ones for any reason, unless they too were devoid of emotions like a Necro almost always has to be to defy public opinion, and common law. -- A Concerned Citizen--
- Check the morality section in this sourcebook. Short summary: Option 1: Negative Energy and, by extension, Necromancy is Evil (TM). Option 2: Negative energy is like cold. Or fire. Or acid. It's dangerous if uncontrolled, but has its uses and isn't really that different from any other force; it'd likely mean that zombies or skeletons would have the alignment of those who command them. Also, if it's bona-fide known that a skeleton is just a shell, a physical remains, it isn't exactly desecrating that person, is it? I mean, that person is gone. All that's left is...carbon. Calcium. Some phosphorus. Etc. There's no super-compelling reason why Necromancy has to be always treated Evil (TM), given that the rationale usually is based on "Because", when you get down to it. --Genowhirl (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2012 (MDT)
- It made me grin. That scheme reminds me of an idea for a world-spanning civilization based on the idea that a Decanter of Endless Water is, essentially, a perpetual motion device. It can continue to put out a good amount of water, ensuring a public water system assuming someone invents the aquaduct, and at amazing pressure, meaning that waterwheels will wear out before the Decanter does. --Genowhirl 02:03, 20 May 2009 (MDT)
- Pet peeve, but that's really not true perpetual motion. It's just draining from something that has infinite pressure. Yeah it's splitting hairs, but whatever. Surgo 02:13, 20 May 2009 (MDT)
- I couldn't think of the right term for it. Now that'll be bothering me... --Genowhirl 02:33, 20 May 2009 (MDT)
Besides simply economic, I would argue that a Necromancer need not be evil inherently. I ran a Dread Necromancer during my last session, who's backstory made him very neutral, and even good at times. The concept was that he was a Necromancer who rose the undead due to a different interpretation of religious belief. It started with the dead of a loved one, he wished to bring them back, and became a necromancer through that. Later, he justified the raising of the dead as a way to keep spirits away from Nerull and an afterlife he believed to be dark and despairing. Also, he would use his necromancy as a support role, reviving fallen teammates, and using spells to boost an undead ally.
- True enough. I never liked the arbitrary "You are evil because you work with undead" that the DnD world always forces. Even being fueled by negative energy isn't truly evil. However you releasing a bunch of feeding undead into the wild, eh I would consider that evil. Tivanir (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2012 (MDT)
Featured Article Nomination
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.
I think this article is a work of art. It fixs many problems with Necromancy.--Milo High-Hill 22:32, 14 January 2011 (MST)
Oppose: A lot of the pages have problems. Once they are resolved, it will have my support. For example, see Tome of Necromancy (3.5e Sourcebook)/The Necronomicon. --Green Dragon 17:42, 1 February 2011 (MST)