|
I've got a sorceror who's about to level up and is planning to take animate dead.
So... The party just took out an adult dragon and it appears the 11th level sorceror will have control over the 21HD dragon forever?
My only way to prevent this is the material component, which would need to be a single onyx gem worth 525 gp. The PC doesn't have such a gem. Instead they have multiple onyx gems that add up to slightly over that. Normally I would allow multiple gems to be used but I'm considering being adamant on this one (I see the goal of components to be draining off a little wealth, and I'm normally not nit-picky about how that wealth is consumed).
How would you rule? The party is currently 5 PCs, all at 11th level, and about half-way through Skeletons of Scarwall (this is the CotCT AP, chapter 5). The classes are: Sor11, Clr3/Wiz3/MT5, Bbn2/Mnk2/Sor1/DD6, Rgr11, and Pal11. (At a minimum, I see the paladin of Pharasma being dead-set against such a thing. But that's between the players and isn't my job to poke my nose into it, except to make it clear to the paladin how Pharasma is going to feel about it. Perhaps even with some blood-under-the-fingernails if he stands by and does nothing.)
|
Well, remember, it is just a skeleton or zombie. It doesn't have all the abilities of a real dragon, as I recall.
Actually, it will have to be a zombie.
Hit Dice: A skeleton drops any HD gained from class levels and changes racial HD to d8s. Creatures without racial HD are treated as if they have 1 racial HD. If the creature has more than 20 Hit Dice, it can't be made into a skeleton by the animate dead spell. A skeleton uses its Cha modifier (instead of its Con modifier) to determine bonus hit points.
So... The party just took out an adult dragon and it appears the 11th level sorceror will have control over the 21HD dragon forever?
Not forever, only until the next high level evil cleric with the Command Undead feat they meet channels energy and takes control of it.
Creative Director
|
A 21 HD skeleton would, at best, be a CR 9 monster (and probably would only be CR 8 anyway). A 21 HD zombie is automatically a CR 8 monster. For an 11th level character, having a pet CR 8 minion is pretty cool... but it's hardly beyond the capabilities of an 11th level character—the Leadership feat and spells like planar ally or planar binding can do that or better. And they get minions who are a lot smaller and thus easier to fit into dungeons or cities.
And on top of that, skeletons and zombies are evil, and casting animate dead is an evil act because the spell has the Evil descriptor. This means that a paladin, ESPECIALLY a paladin of Pharasma, would not approve. It'd certainly start the spellcaster down the path to an alignment shift to evil, which in Scarwall is particularly not a good plan due to the curse affecting the place, if I recall correctly...
And in the end, the material component is pretty clear that it requires a single onyx gem, so yeah, the lack of a 525 gp piece of onyx would in and of itself shut down this option for a spellcaster.
And in the end, the material component is pretty clear that it requires a single onyx gem, so yeah, the lack of a 525 gp piece of onyx would in and of itself shut down this option for a spellcaster.
Although, a fabricate spell could turn the multiple onyx gems into a single one.
That is a nasty skeleton or zombie to control at 11th level, but it is about the top of what is posible. Since the paladin would not be happy to have an evil creature in the party, the caster could create it, then ship it off somewhere. It could guard his tower, deliver a message, or airlift the party, or just kick someones ass. As long as the paladin doesn't know about it.
But as a GM, I would not really want a creature like that always with the party.
Oh yeah, I just remembered how much dragons love to see their family members turned into udead an bossed around by humanoids. No reason they might get revenge, nope, nope.
I remember the good old days in D&D v3.0/3.5 where spells would ask for gems of X value, when gems of X value never appeared on the treasure tables and thus never existed.
Pathinder, on the other hand, makes it clear that its treasure tables aren't absolute values, thus an onyx gem worth 525gp is still possible (albeit amazingly rare I bet).
Personally, I don't think spells should give a single gem as a material component. Higher end spells with such low-quality gems of such high worth make little sense at all. It should be gems or gem dust or something.
|
|
@TOZ: I was originally worried about it because of the expected CR. However, the template indicates that the CR is actually much lower than I feared. Probably due to only a single attack per round and the loss of all special attacks (breath weapon, frightful presence, and so on). Which means my initial fear was an over-reaction. Whew, good. :)
A 21 HD skeleton would, at best, be a CR 9 monster (and probably would only be CR 8 anyway). A 21 HD zombie is automatically a CR 8 monster.
Well, now that you mention it...
I just checked the template and it says the CR is based on the zombies "new total HD". Later in the entry it says this zombie would gain +4 HD because it's size Huge. So that would make it 21+4 = 25 HD, so yes, it would be a CR 9.
But what about the Natural Armor? The chart says the NA bonus should be +4 at size Huge. I presume that's the total NA, not something that gets added to the base creature's existing NA?
The template also says that the Cha is set to 10, but that would eliminate any hp gain from a high Cha so is that correct? I think I remember reading about this a year or so ago; that means it's time to check the archives...
And on top of that, skeletons and zombies are evil, and casting animate dead is an evil act because the spell has the Evil descriptor. This means that a paladin, ESPECIALLY a paladin of Pharasma, would not approve.
Heh, yeah... As expected. :)
And in the end, the material component is pretty clear that it requires a single onyx gem, so yeah, the lack of a 525 gp piece of onyx would in and of itself shut down this option for a spellcaster.
As Disenchanter points out, they cold do that with the fabricate spell, but no one in the party has that spell. :)
|
Creative Director
|
I remember the good old days in D&D v3.0/3.5 where spells would ask for gems of X value, when gems of X value never appeared on the treasure tables and thus never existed.
Pathinder, on the other hand, makes it clear that its treasure tables aren't absolute values, thus an onyx gem worth 525gp is still possible (albeit amazingly rare I bet).
Personally, I don't think spells should give a single gem as a material component. Higher end spells with such low-quality gems of such high worth make little sense at all. It should be gems or gem dust or something.
Actually, and in the case of animate dead in particular, the fact that high-value onyx gems are pretty rare is pretty cool! Makes being able to create high HD zombies and skeletons with animate dead suitably rare for my tastes.
|
Creative Director
|
But what about the Natural Armor? The chart says the NA bonus should be +4 at size Huge. I presume that's the total NA, not something that gets added to the base creature's existing NA?
The template also says that the Cha is set to 10, but that would eliminate any hp gain from a high Cha so is that correct? I think I remember reading about this a year or so ago; that means it's time to check the archives...
Both correct. Skeletons and zombies don't have high Charisma scores at all, and thus don't gain bonus hit points. Their natural armor scores are also purely a factor of their HD; the original creature's natural armor doesn't count at all.
A couple of teleport spells would probably also fix the gem problem. Teleport to the largest city you know about and spend the day visiting merchants. A 525 gp gem isn't that valuable, so any sizable city probably has some for sale if you are going by the 3.5 rules for what is available in a given city.
Assuming the zombie template does not take away the additional natural attacks and it is only losing them due to being limited to a single standard action, there are several ways for the zombie dragon to get a full attack.
The first is to use a standard action in one round to start a full round action, and use another to finish it in the second round. That is vulnerable to the opponents moving out of range.
If he casts Haste or Remove Paralysis as part of creating the zombie, it can also make a full attack. With a dragon corpse, it's probably well worth his effort to do so, even if he needs to use a scroll to do so. It appears that this does not increase the CR of the zombie, which is probably an oversight. Still, I don't see it making the zombie more than CR 9 or possibly 10.
I think that Haste used to allow a creature restricted to a standard action to take a full round action, but it appears that this is no longer the case.
I thought this was going to be a thread about flat screen High Definition tv's. Oh well.
The first is to use a standard action in one round to start a full round action, and use another to finish it in the second round.
Very clever, but this is specifically prohibited as to making a full attack. See p. 186 of the CRB.
And on top of that, skeletons and zombies are evil, and casting animate dead is an evil act because the spell has the Evil descriptor.A small note. Unless pathfinder has changed things the evil descriptor does not make casting that spell an evil act. Nor the opposite (casting a good descriptor spell being a good act). It is just something that good clerics and clerics of good deities cannot cast.
Now that said, certainly animating the dead is something nasty and that in and of itself is bad. Good aligned (and many neutrals too) will frown upon this to one degree or another. But its not, as far as I know, simply from the descriptor, but rather from what it is actually doing.
For example, simply casting summon monster 1 a few hundred times to have a celestial critter fight, take hits and get clobbered for you doesn't make you a better person!
-James
It's magic. The spell corrupts your soul, and vice versa. Power checks, how I miss you...
|
Creative Director
|
And on top of that, skeletons and zombies are evil, and casting animate dead is an evil act because the spell has the Evil descriptor.A small note. Unless pathfinder has changed things the evil descriptor does not make casting that spell an evil act. Nor the opposite (casting a good descriptor spell being a good act). It is just something that good clerics and clerics of good deities cannot cast.
Now that said, certainly animating the dead is something nasty and that in and of itself is bad. Good aligned (and many neutrals too) will frown upon this to one degree or another. But its not, as far as I know, simply from the descriptor, but rather from what it is actually doing.
For example, simply casting summon monster 1 a few hundred times to have a celestial critter fight, take hits and get clobbered for you doesn't make you a better person!
-James
If an evil PC in a game I was running cast lots of summon monster 1 spells to call in celestial critters, I would indeed have his alignment shift toward good if he wasn't overwhelming the evil by doing other bad guy things.
A small note. Unless pathfinder has changed things the evil descriptor does not make casting that spell an evil act. Nor the opposite (casting a good descriptor spell being a good act). It is just something that good clerics and clerics of good deities cannot cast.
And on top of that, skeletons and zombies are evil, and casting animate dead is an evil act because the spell has the Evil descriptor.
Please, don't go there, anybody. It's an endless discussion that will take 511 pages just to get to the point where we all agree to disagree.
Contributor
|
Getting back to the zombie dragon question, couldn't there also be repercussions from a story perspective?
In most settings, dragons aren't going to take too kindly to a "puny mortal sorcerer" turning one of their kind into an undead monstrosity, are they? Even assuming the dragon was evil, most good dragons are going to frown on such practices.
I could be wrong, of course, but creating a minion that's going to anger a lot of other, perhaps bigger and nastier, creatures might be somewhat self-limiting.
Oh, and an 11th level caster can't animate a 25hd zombie.
|
Creative Director
|
Please, don't go there, anybody. It's an endless discussion that will take 511 pages just to get to the point where we all agree to disagree.A small note. Unless pathfinder has changed things the evil descriptor does not make casting that spell an evil act. Nor the opposite (casting a good descriptor spell being a good act). It is just something that good clerics and clerics of good deities cannot cast.
And on top of that, skeletons and zombies are evil, and casting animate dead is an evil act because the spell has the Evil descriptor.
And well before then, I'll be certain to drop the "Batman is chaotic good!" messageboard destruction bomb. Don't make me do it!
I actually had a similar situation running the Savage Tide Adventure Path. Unfortunately, it did become a problem.
My PCs had a Dread Necromancer amongst them. He always had undead pets, which I thought was pretty cool. The problem was, that he would find creatures that had improved grab to animate... and they frequently had grapple modifiers that were basically impossible to beat.
Um.
From the 3.5 SRD:
Skeleton: Special Attacks
A skeleton retains none of the base creature’s special attacks.
Zombie: Special Attacks
A zombie retains none of the base creature’s special attacks.
Animated skeletons and zombies are just bruisers, they don't have any special abilities of the living version of the creature, even mundane stuff like improved grab and pounce.
Is there a reference in the new Pathfinder books to alignment descriptor spells being acts of that alignment? There wasn't in 3.x and I haven't yet noticed anything in Pathfinder different in this regard, have I missed something?
It's not a hard and fast rule, but it is suggested/implied:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
That states that spell descriptors specifically DO interact with alignment separately from how they interact with special abilities (such as a cleric/oracle/inquisitor/druid being unable to cast spells with an opposing alignment descriptor). It does not say specifically how they interact with alignment.
Is there a reference in the new Pathfinder books to alignment descriptor spells being acts of that alignment? There wasn't in 3.x and I haven't yet noticed anything in Pathfinder different in this regard, have I missed something?
Actually, in the book of vile dorkness they stated that casting [evil] spells is evil, but that's one of worst the 3.5 books ever so I won't give it too much credit.
|
Creative Director
|
Great I'll remember to have a PC cast a few (or many) dozen of these for every innocent they slaughter to 'balance' things out. Does that really make any sense to you?
We leave the ramifications of casting Evil, Good, Lawful, and Chaotic spells more or less up to each individual GM, actually. If you think that casting them shouldn't impact alignment, no big deal. In games I run, they do. I'm certainly not trying to tell anyone how to run their game, simply saying that the fact that animate dead has the Evil descriptor and that a GM can use that to encourage non-evil casters to avoid it.
No need to get all worked up about it, in any event, since again, the ramifications are left to each GM to decide on his/her own. It DOES impact the divine version of the spells, though, in that a cleric's alignment limits what types of creatures he can summon.
So if I summon celestial creatures all the time and make them do evil things, or summon fiendish creatures and make them do good things, does that cancel out and make me neutral?
Does summonining elementals and other neutral creatures considered a neutral act? And will summoning such creatures enough eventually make me neutral?
|
Creative Director
|
So if I summon celestial creatures all the time and make them do evil things, or summon fiendish creatures and make them do good things, does that cancel out and make me neutral?
Does summonining elementals and other neutral creatures considered a neutral act? And will summoning such creatures enough eventually make me neutral?
It makes you crazy, and the type of player that would my GM alignment shift toward evil.
Great I'll remember to have a PC cast a few (or many) dozen of these for every innocent they slaughter to 'balance' things out. Does that really make any sense to you?We leave the ramifications of casting Evil, Good, Lawful, and Chaotic spells more or less up to each individual GM, actually. If you think that casting them shouldn't impact alignment, no big deal. In games I run, they do. I'm certainly not trying to tell anyone how to run their game, simply saying that the fact that animate dead has the Evil descriptor and that a GM can use that to encourage non-evil casters to avoid it.
No need to get all worked up about it, in any event, since again, the ramifications are left to each GM to decide on his/her own. It DOES impact the divine version of the spells, though, in that a cleric's alignment limits what types of creatures he can summon.
I appreciate what you are saying here, and advice from an experienced GM is why many people post questions to these boards.
BUT, you must remember that many people also lurk here with bated breath for the possible sighting of the dreaded, fearsome....Croco-Game-Designer/Developer/Editor!
When you (or Jason, or even Vic) pop on and say, "And on top of that, skeletons and zombies are evil, and casting animate dead is an evil act because the spell has the Evil descriptor.", people are going to take that as the way the rules are implicitly intended.
So, getting worked up over an apparent alteration of the RAW is what was happening. Like so many do on messageboards as a matter of etiquette, prefacing comments with IMHO, IMC, etc. would seem even more important for a person in your position.....you know...with followers (did you take the Leadership feat, or was it a bonus?).
|
Creative Director
|
People who obsess over rules minutae are going to get worked up regardless of what I say. I see it happening all the time on the threads I or Jason or anyone else from Paizo doesn't comment on. And prefacing my comments with things like IMHO and IMC in the past has only resulted in people ignoring my advice and asking for "official" rulings.
Can't win either way, but I'll keep posting to these threads anyway. Because I can't help myself.
Can't win either way, but I'll keep posting to these threads anyway. Because I can't help myself.
And some of us just read the threads quietly, and look for where you, Sean, Jason, Vic, etc. have taken the time to respond and are very thankful to have the opportunity to get answers from the folks who wrote the books and see what they were trying to say when the rules were written.
Many thanks.
While Improved Grab is definitely a Special Attack (and thus clearly removed as you point out), I wonder if there are any special qualities that could cause problems on a really big skeleton 'pet'?
Huh. I don't think there are many in the Bestiary. Ettins used to have superior two-weapon fighting as a Special Quality, but now it's a Special Attack it seems.
Does Change Shape count, if you change shape into something with better attacks?
Skeletal or Zombie dragons are not that big of a threat if you apply the template correctly.
I was running an FR campaign with a lot of Cult of the Dragon involvement.
My level 8 players crapped themselves when the had a secret door slam shut behind them and they were facing a Hugh skeletal dragon(which they were let to believe was a dracolich) AND multiple spell casting cultists.
Once they figured out they were not about to die horribly, and that the dragon was for some odd reason not using any special abilities, the fight became one of those "hey remember the time we fought that dracolich, fun times...." fights.
|
|
Sorry for not replying earlier; been busy the last couple of days.
Oh, and an 11th level caster can't animate a 25hd zombie.
The Sor11 is casting the spell on a 21HD dragon. His limit is 22HD. The zombie template converts the dragon into a 25HD creature when the template is applied.
So what the Sor wants to do is well within the ability of the spell.
I do like the idea of other dragons (aligned or not) being rather upset at one of their brethren being "converted to the dark side". I may just use that. :)
Concerning the creation of a "fast zombie":
Quick Strikes (Ex): Whenever a fast zombie takes a full-attack action, it can make one additional slam attack at its highest base attack bonus.
What does this mean for a dragon that has a bite as a primary attack? The slam would become a bite, correct?
My party does have haste available within the group. I'm thinking that either the spellcaster needs to expend the spell slot with haste in it as part of the undead creation, or another spellcaster needs to cast haste at the same time.
Oh, and I'm not too sure how likely a major town would be in providing a high-value onyx gem to an adventurer. For example, let's say your the jeweler and someone comes in with 21 onyx gems worth roughly 25 gp each and wants a single 525 gp onyx gem. I know I wouldn't sell it to them! Certainly not without some kind of authorization from either the local government or the local mage's guild.
Of course, the gem doesn't have to be worth 525 gp as long as the PC pays 525 gp for it. "An item is worth what someone will pay." So a cheap onyx gem becomes worth 525 gp because the PC paid that much for it. Silly, I know, but that's one of the fundamental laws of economics in D&D. :)
|
Creative Director
|
Concerning the creation of a "fast zombie":
Quick Strikes (Ex): Whenever a fast zombie takes a full-attack action, it can make one additional slam attack at its highest base attack bonus.What does this mean for a dragon that has a bite as a primary attack? The slam would become a bite, correct?
Nope; the quick strikes ability just lets the zombie make an extra slam attack.
Sorry for not replying earlier; been busy the last couple of days.
Oh, and an 11th level caster can't animate a 25hd zombie.The Sor11 is casting the spell on a 21HD dragon. His limit is 22HD. The zombie template converts the dragon into a 25HD creature when the template is applied.
So what the Sor wants to do is well within the ability of the spell.
Are you sure on that? The spell states:
"Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can't create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. The desecrate spell doubles this limit."This seems to take into consideration only how many HD the resulting undead creature has, not how many the original creature had.
On the other hand, no matter if the limit is 22HD base creature or 22HD zombie, it's not more complex than first casting desecrate. Then you have margins.
Sorry for not replying earlier; been busy the last couple of days.
Oh, and an 11th level caster can't animate a 25hd zombie.The Sor11 is casting the spell on a 21HD dragon. His limit is 22HD. The zombie template converts the dragon into a 25HD creature when the template is applied.
So what the Sor wants to do is well within the ability of the spell.
Are you sure on that? The spell states:
"Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can't create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. The desecrate spell doubles this limit."
This seems to take into consideration only how many HD the resulting undead creature has, not how many the original creature had.On the other hand, no matter if the limit is 22HD base creature or 22HD zombie, it's not more complex than first casting desecrate. Then you have margins.
Yes, but I don't believe sorcerer can cast desecrate, and I seriously doubt the good cleric is going to cast it for them.
Yes, but I don't believe sorcerer can cast desecrate, and I seriously doubt the good cleric is going to cast it for them.
Ah, forgot that the caster was a sorcerer. Most sorcerers would probably have at least one rank in UMD, granting a bonus of +8-9 at the very least at that level.
|
|
Nope; the quick strikes ability just lets the zombie make an extra slam attack.Concerning the creation of a "fast zombie":
Quick Strikes (Ex): Whenever a fast zombie takes a full-attack action, it can make one additional slam attack at its highest base attack bonus.What does this mean for a dragon that has a bite as a primary attack? The slam would become a bite, correct?
Hmm. From the Zombie template description:
Attacks: A zombie retains all the natural weapons, manufactured weapon attacks, and weapon proficiencies of the base creature. It also gains a slam attack that deals damage based on the zombie's size, but as if it were one size category larger than its actual size (see Natural Attacks).
So the zombie still has the bite, claw, wing, and tail attacks, right? But since it's permanently staggered, it can only use one of them each round. Probably the bite since it's got the greatest reach and damage.
So the "fast zombie" gains a slam attack at BAB(18) + StrMod? But since the fast zombie doesn't gain the staggered condition, it can make a full attack using the dragon's natural weapons, right? So it now has a bite, two claws, two wings, a tail, and a slam?
yes, that looks right, the quick zombie dragon could make all of the physical attacks that the living dragon could on a full attack and get in a slam attack (because of quick strikes).
remember that quick zombies pay for their non-staggered state and quick strike ability by not getting normal zombie Damage Reduction.