Vampire and Lich


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Java Man wrote:
I've never heard of a lich moping and whining about his fate, vampires on the other hand...

And you never hear of a lich being excited or passionate about anything either. They're barely more lively than the books they surround themselves with.

And the vampires who whine are mainly those who start their careers as victims, as opposed to those who choose that destiny.

Spike and Angelus for instance. have no second thoughts or compunctions about what they are.

Actually, if you managed to make a lich talk about his plans and his studies, I'd bet it'd wax passionate about his subject... you need drive to become a lich, and you don't become one unless you plan to have something to do throughout a large chunk of eternity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The key flaw with becoming a vampire, though, is that it's too stupid a risk for any self-respecting mage to take. Even a sorcerer should have built up some paranoia by the time they're considering going undead. There is no way to become a vampire without initially being under the control of another, and worse, whoever makes you a vampire will probably know that—and who doesn't want the chance to have an archmage in their thrall?

So, yeah, have fun with the "superior bonuses" and "sensation" of being a vampire. You just have to risk becoming someone's eternal slave to do it.


umm do believe it says slave to master until either master dies or frees you


only if the vampireism is aquired :) if you are born with vampireism those restrictions wouldn't apply

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The key flaw with becoming a vampire, though, is that it's too stupid a risk for any self-respecting mage to take. Even a sorcerer should have built up some paranoia by the time they're considering going undead. There is no way to become a vampire without initially being under the control of another, and worse, whoever makes you a vampire will probably know that—and who doesn't want the chance to have an archmage in their thrall?

So, yeah, have fun with the "superior bonuses" and "sensation" of being a vampire. You just have to risk becoming someone's eternal slave to do it.

It seems an enormous risk for the vampire master too.

Seoni the Sorcerer goes evil and she notices a wrinkle in the mirror so she decides to vamp it up. She finds a vain and noble vampire lord and offers her pretty neck, becomes a thrall.

The problem for the vampire is that Seoni didn't get to be a 12th level Sorcerer on her own nor did she do it by being dumb.

He is the one being seduced - her contingency plan kicks in, and evil doppelgänger Valeros and Kyra and Merisiel show up and slaughter the vampire who just got played.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are ways to use mind control on undead. There are definitely ways to use mind control on minions that you want to kill the vampire after he converts you. Requires higher level than otherwise and some planning, but it's not impossible.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The key flaw with becoming a vampire, though, is that it's too stupid a risk for any self-respecting mage to take. Even a sorcerer should have built up some paranoia by the time they're considering going undead. There is no way to become a vampire without initially being under the control of another...

Actually, there is.

Just use Control Undead to force a vampire with less than half your hit dice to turn you. You will then exceed its maximum control level and automatically become free willed.


but you have to be insanely high level to pull that trick...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
but you have to be insanely high level to pull that trick...

Not really. Find a moderate vampire and have him turn a level 1 commoner or expert. Kill the moderate vampire. Control the weak vampire to turn you. Voila.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
only if the vampireism is aquired :) if you are born with vampireism those restrictions wouldn't apply

The Vampire template is acquired, not inherited.

Though now I think a Vampire Dhampir with the Life-Dominant Soul could be a nasty surprise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The key flaw with becoming a vampire, though, is that it's too stupid a risk for any self-respecting mage to take. Even a sorcerer should have built up some paranoia by the time they're considering going undead. There is no way to become a vampire without initially being under the control of another...

Actually, there is.

Just use Control Undead to force a vampire with less than half your hit dice to turn you. You will then exceed its maximum control level and automatically become free willed.

Or when the 1 minute/level control undead spell wears off, you are already dead. The now uncontrolled vampire, knowing what you are attempting, then destroys your body sometime in the 1d4 days it takes you to come back from the dead as a vampire.

Fits perfectly with the last line of the spell.

Quote:
Intelligent undead creatures remember that you controlled them, and they may seek revenge after the spell's effects end.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Minimum hit dice for a vampire is 5.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Saw the title and my first was "Will society ever accept their love?!"


6 people marked this as a favorite.

You never see a centuries-old lich hanging around a high school, pining after a teenager.

Dignity FTW.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:
Saw the title and my first was "Will society ever accept their love?!"

It'd never last. In a couple of hundred years, they'd be all:

"It's always the blood of virgins with you! Don't you ever just want to stay in and read a book?"
"Fine! I'm going out with my thralls!"
"I don't know what you see in those thralls. They don't challenge you."
"But they're there for me! You never used to be so torpid! We used to go out murdering together all the time! You've changed!"
"You promised to take me for better or for worse! It's not my fault my body crumbled away below the neck!"
"You should have taken better care of yourself! ...I'm sorry. That was tactless."
"At least bring me back a soul to devour."
"Fine... I'll dominate someone on the way home."
"Be home before sunrise."
"I KNOW!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

IIRC, Undead Revisited goes into how a lich can actually maintain a decent appearance by just bothering to maintain its body.

Most liches don't bother.

But yeah, the real bottom line is that liches don't die in the sun and don't need permission to enter a house, both of which are kind of a big deal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:
Saw the title and my first was "Will society ever accept their love?!"

Of course they will. That mob with flaming pitchforks is simply on their way for a housewarming.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


And you never hear of a lich being excited or passionate about anything either.
I'm not sure that's true. Most liches I've seen in various forms of fiction are quite passionate about things.

in fact, you pretty much only hear about the passionate ones.

Because the boring ones just sit in a cave forever and only get mentioned when an idiot tries to sneak in and steal their stuff. The passionate ones try to take over counties with undead armies, or try to ascend to godhood.

Even then, patience is a lich's virtue (or 'why live forever if you can't leverage time as your advantage?'). Why bother with a particularly hard nut (hero) when it will rot away in a century or two? Just wait a generation or two and their descendants may well be horridly spoiled little brats that couldn't lead or fight their way out of a paper bag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:
umm do believe it says slave to master until either master dies or frees you
OoOOoOoO wrote:
He is the one being seduced - her contingency plan kicks in, and evil doppelgänger Valeros and Kyra and Merisiel show up and slaughter the vampire who just got played.

Mm-hm. And whoever wants to kill your master has to go through you. High risk of becoming sad pile of dust.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Just use Control Undead to force a vampire with less than half your hit dice to turn you. You will then exceed its maximum control level and automatically become free willed.

Oh, interesting. I didn't know they had a maximum control level. I guess it can be gamed, then.

Jeraa wrote:
Or when the 1 minute/level control undead spell wears off, you are already dead. The now uncontrolled vampire, knowing what you are attempting, then destroys your body sometime in the 1d4 days it takes you to come back from the dead as a vampire.

Or not.

One of the tricks that actually makes this very difficult is that free-willed undead are definitively difficult to control. A cleric or wizard can use Command Undead, which lasts days, but they get a save every morning. On average, there's about a 12% chance of them rolling a Natural 20 over the next 1d4 days. Write it on the blackboard a hundred times: Good archmages do not take risks they can't control.

Now, you would probably want to recruit some powerful servants (like outsiders) who would kill the vampire and guard your body. That'd be what the smart would-be vampire does. But it's still putting you out of commission for several days, and generally speaking, there is nothing more dangerous than an archmage who's awake—and therefore no greater lot of security than an archmage who is not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Charm Monster metamagicked to work on undead is a 5th level spell that lasts days per CL. It's doable.


What feat allows that metamagic? It's important not to take non-Core for granted here. All the rules beyond Core are generally seen as optional additions. :P

Anyways, the real issue isn't controlling the vampire. The real issue is that archmages have enemies, and you bet they're gonna be interested if they hear there's a 1d4 day period where you are entirely helpless to react to them. In almost every regard, being a vampire is a much more risky proposition than being a lich. More weaknesses, no soul hideyhole, and becoming a vampire itself is a process fraught with "IF"s.


BAM (from Ultimate Magic).

There are precious few things you can't do, now.

If we're avoiding anything other than Core, the game is going to have a lot more issues - up to and including the fact that lichdom is fundamentally impossible for a PC to afford.

Unless you're working in a way around the system, in which case the GM is going to have a lot of work to do anyway...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I regard the Bestiary as a "core" rulebook. I'm just saying, you shouldn't take any one splatbook for granted. :P


Azten wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
only if the vampireism is aquired :) if you are born with vampireism those restrictions wouldn't apply

The Vampire template is acquired, not inherited.

Though now I think a Vampire Dhampir with the Life-Dominant Soul could be a nasty surprise.

vampire + vampire would = a baby vampire


2 people marked this as a favorite.

vampires are undead, the mechanisms or reproduction don't work anymore


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a winter witch who was utterly consumed with vanity and the GM happened to have her find a tome including a ritual to become a vampire in a pile of an enemy's loot...

Flawed characters make 'fun' decisions. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dhampirs wrote:
The half-living children of vampires birthed by human females, dhampirs are progenies of both horror and tragedy. The circumstances of a dhampir's conception are often called into question but scarcely understood, as few mortal mothers survive the childbirth. Those who do often abandon their monstrous children and refuse to speak of the matter. While some speculate that dhampirs result when mortal women couple with vampires, others claim that they form when a pregnant woman suffers a vampire bite. Some particularly zealous scholars even contest dhampirs' status as a unique race, instead viewing them as humans suffering from an unholy affliction. Indeed, this hypothesis is strengthened by dhampirs' seeming inability to reproduce, their offspring inevitably humans (usually sorcerers with the undead bloodline).

Undead do not make babies with other undead.


there are tons of instances were vampires make babies with other vampires in vampire fiction so there's no reason why they cant do so other than the standard answer of paizo said so.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There are many instances of lots of things that defy pathfinder rules in assorted fiction, so what? If we do not have the common ground of discussing Pathfinder, what is the point? Can't really compare two things if we don't have a common definition for them can we?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are lots of kinds of vampires in fiction some of which are not technically undead. Pathfinder vampires are undead and do not reproduce themselves in that manner.

Edit: Ninja'd be the Ninja Java Man.


no were in the undead rules does it say undead can't reproduce

undead:
No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution (such as when calculating a breath weapon's DC).
Darkvision 60 feet.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
Immunity to death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
Not subject to nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength), as well as to exhaustion and fatigue effects.
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but is immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points.
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.
Proficient with its natural weapons, all simple weapons, and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Undead not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Undead are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
so if the undead still has their bits like vampires do they would be able to reproduce


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh, pretty sure there is no rule preventing skeletons from reproducing then. Or ghosts. Or iron golems.


Java Man wrote:
Huh, pretty sure there is no rule preventing skeletons from reproducing then. Or ghosts. Or iron golems.

so long as they some how had the reproductive organs to do so they would


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow. I can't even set a DC for the Acrobatics check required for this shark-jump.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Huh, pretty sure there is no rule preventing skeletons from reproducing then. Or ghosts. Or iron golems.
so long as they some how had the reproductive organs to do so they would

Why do they need the organs? We've already established that a pulse, aging, growing, breathing and wctually being alive are not necessary, why quibble?


Java Man wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Huh, pretty sure there is no rule preventing skeletons from reproducing then. Or ghosts. Or iron golems.
so long as they some how had the reproductive organs to do so they would
Why do they need the organs? We've already established that a pulse, aging, growing, breathing and wctually being alive are not necessary, why quibble?

because those organs are a staple for reproduction not necessarily being alive and the majority of undead that cant reproduce have the spawn ability which lets them reproduce by killing things


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
there are tons of instances were vampires make babies with other vampires in vampire fiction so there's no reason why they cant do so other than the standard answer of paizo said so.

Okay, playing this game, there are tons of instances where they can't. Buffy the Vampire Slayer said so.

There's strong evidence that undead can't reproduce in Pathfinder. The uncertainty surrounding dhampirs wouldn't exist if undead had no holdups with reproduction. And True Ghouls would have means of multiplying beyond spreading Ghoul Fever.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Huh, pretty sure there is no rule preventing skeletons from reproducing then. Or ghosts. Or iron golems.
so long as they some how had the reproductive organs to do so they would
Why do they need the organs? We've already established that a pulse, aging, growing, breathing and wctually being alive are not necessary, why quibble?
because those organs are a staple for reproduction not necessarily being alive and the majority of undead that cant reproduce have the spawn ability which lets them reproduce by killing things

Nowhere in the rulebooks does it say you need organs to reproduce. Because reproduction isn't covered in the rules. This isn't a rules matter, it's a matter of basic common sense. Let me break this down.

First, undead don't need to breathe. As such, they require no blood flow. As such, they can't...well, let's just say blood flow is fairly important in reproduction. Second, undead don't need to eat to live. Not even vampires and ghouls. As such, they don't need to use the bathroom. Their bodies do not produce waste, or, for that matter, any substances associated with reproduction. They produce nothing at all, because they process nothing at all. Third, undead cannot be diseased, poisoned, stunned, or pretty much anything. This is because their bodies do not match the internal systems of living creatures in any way, shape or form. No blood flow. No metabolism. No reproduction. They aren't some perfect copy of us—they are hollow replicas.

There is simply no reason to believe the unholy force allowing undead to walk and talk also decides to maintain reproductive functions. They are literally the antithesis of life. They don't create, they destroy. Otherwise, what's the point in resenting the living?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This thread just became the most silly thing I've seen since the "Can you live off your own poop if you keep casting purify food and water on it" thread.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

*Looks at self in mirror*

what have I done with my life.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
This thread just became the most silly thing I've seen since the "Can you live off your own poop if you keep casting purify food and water on it" thread.

I vote we go off topic and discuss this for seven or eight pages.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

can a ghoul live off its own poop

Spoiler:
no


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

*Looks at self in mirror*

what have I done with my life.

Back on topic liches are inheriently casters. Which means all of the downsides can be overcome by their inherent features. Plus they're nigh unkillable.

If you want a body for awhile you can have a body. There are lots of ways.

If not for the inherent evilness I can't imagine a world where lichdom isn't a goal for every caster.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

can a ghoul live off its own poop

** spoiler omitted **

This reminds me of some esoteric speculation on vampires but for, like, the other three humours...

Discuss.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

*Looks at self in mirror*

what have I done with my life.

Back on topic liches are inheriently casters. Which means all of the downsides can be overcome by their inherent features. Plus they're nigh unkillable.

If you want a body for awhile you can have a body. There are lots of ways.

If not for the inherent evilness I can't imagine a world where lichdom isn't a goal for every caster.

The cost of a phylactery will buy you at least a couple of Wishes to pick what your Reincarnate into as you get old.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

*Looks at self in mirror*

what have I done with my life.

I hear you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't see anything what have I done with my unlife.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

*Looks at self in mirror*

what have I done with my life.

Back on topic liches are inheriently casters. Which means all of the downsides can be overcome by their inherent features. Plus they're nigh unkillable.

If you want a body for awhile you can have a body. There are lots of ways.

If not for the inherent evilness I can't imagine a world where lichdom isn't a goal for every caster.

The cost of a phylactery will buy you at least a couple of Wishes to pick what your Reincarnate into as you get old.

How precisely are you going to get these wishes cast after you're killed? Who do you trust that much? Even if your plan works there's a diminishing return after a couple of deaths and/or lifetimes.

But if we're shooting for the stars just pray real hard that some deity will save you from old age. Sounds like a flawless plan.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A nonevil archmage is more likely to have people they can trust. Failing that, Dominate Person works wonders on midlevel druids. The ritual only takes an hour, and the wish can be done by you once you're alive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
A nonevil archmage is more likely to have people they can trust. Failing that, Dominate Person works wonders on midlevel druids. The ritual only takes an hour, and the wish can be done by you once you're alive.

There are many ways to live forever. Lichdom, once achieved, is one of the more reliable.

51 to 100 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Vampire and Lich All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.