Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - the Undead Thread
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    the Undead Thread
    Author Message
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:05 pm  
    the Undead Thread

    A couple of things about which I wonder regarding these foul things:

    1) Do all undead, no matter how minor or major have infravision? I know that I delved a bit with some of our conversations, but wonder if a human zombie would have infravision. The human doesn't after all, so would the animated corpse? Same goes with a human skeleton.

    I would figure that vampires, shadows, ghosts, spectres, wraiths and others that shun and fear must have infravision though I haven't seen any data to outright (in 1e and 2e, after all) say they do. At least not that I recall. But I guess if a human vampire (or other greater undead) somehow gets that ability, perhaps the minor undead get it too?

    What do you think? For some reason I recall a module ("Cult of the Reptile God" comes to mind) where human zombies were using torches to carry out subterranean work, which strongly suggests they must need a light source...or maybe my memory is wrong on this.

    2) I gather that the non-corporeal undead, like spectres, ghosts, and wraiths, are able to pass completely through solid objects (walls, for instance), and do so because they can become Ethereal at will. After all, in Manual of the Planes (I like that book), they are sometimes found at will on that Plane.

    3) For Turning and Commanding, you get one shot as a cleric to either Command or Turn them. If you fail, too bad, so sad. Cry However, it is my understanding that in a case where one cleric is Commanding (Evil) and another is Turning (Good), it can be like a ping pong match, until one ultimately fails the roll, correct? Once you fail, no second chances.

    FYI: see my post on the 1e and 2e Forum about Commanding/Turning tables (esp. as they pertain to Planar beasts), as I think it was better suited there, and I am trying to reform myself by not posting everything on this Forum and following convention. Wink

    thank you all,

    -Lanthorn
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 31, 2006
    Posts: 49
    From: Reno, Nevada

    Send private message
    Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:07 pm  

    In 3rd edition all Undead have Darkvision out to 60' and the Incorporeal subtype are immune to all non-magical attack forms and has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source.

    In 2nd edition I don't know if Undead had any special vision. I know that in most cases it was different for each Undead. I looked up Zombies and it didnt say anything about their vision. Vampires needed a +1 weapon to harm them and Ghosts needed a silver weapon to harm them. Ghosts were Ethereal and pretty much couldn't be hurt unless they materialized.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:06 pm  

    Mouse's summary covers the facts to the best of my recollection also.

    It seems to me that they fixed the oversight in 3.5 by specifically stating that all undead have darkvision. As you have discovered, Lanthorn, AD&D and 2nd Edition sometimes didn't say whether a particular type of undead could see in the dark or by what means. It was just assumed. Working backward, you could assume that all undead in those previous editions were supposed to be able to see in the dark and apply your own rules for how it works.

    Basically, the foul, negative material plane, magic that grants unlife to the dead, includes the ability to see in the dark (Darkvision/Infravision) or otherwise detect living beings as a side effect.

    SirXaris
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Dec 06, 2003
    Posts: 85
    From: Torrance, Calif.

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:10 am  

    I just assume (in my games) that undead can sense 'life force' up to 120'. I don't really deal with undead too much, except in dungeons, so I've never really thought too much on this topic.

    Now you've got me thinking... undead plague, yes, I think the PCs would like that. Or maybe an undead forest... hmm


    The Grey Mouser
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:28 am  

    Everything has normal vision unless otherwise stated in its entry, in any edition of the game. In 1E/2E, infravision/ultravision, etc. are special abilities, and as such if a creature has them it will be listed in their monster entry. If such special abilities are not listed for a creature, it does not have them at all. thing is not listed, the creature doesn't have it.

    In 1E and 2E at least, most undead will usually be wandering around aimlessly in the dark, just like everyone else, which makes it all the more fun when somebody finally lights up a torch/lantern. Laughing
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:18 pm  

    Cebrion is pretty much correct on the statement that things like infravision, considered a 'special ability,' tend to be listed in writing. For the life of me, I don't remember any overt descriptions of infravision being mentioned (looking it up right now...yeah, not seeing it written...)

    However, the designers, in my less-than-humble opinion for once, really dropped the ball on that one. I've always thought that the greater undead like ghosts, vamps, spectres, wraiths, and wights, must have infravision of some sort. They all are nocturnal, or strongly tend that way (I think wights can go out in the day, but hate it).

    So what is the point of a nocturnal creature NOT being able to see in the dark? That is completely illogical, and a flaw in reasoning. That's like a bat not having echolocation, or raccoon, alligator, coyote, cats, and the whole host of other animals not having 'eyeshine' to navigate through the dark. It seems almost ludicrous to me to picture a spectre or vampire, both who are powerless or destroyed by sunlight, to be blundering around in the dark... This is one of those times I will rely on my logic to override what I consider an oversight.

    Now, if 3e "corrected" for this, GREAT! And it will be one of the (few) rules of later editions that I whole-heartedly embrace.

    That said, I still wonder if 'lesser' undead, those that are not really 'nocturnal' would have infravision...

    Anyone have anything else to add on this conundrum (and the other two)?

    -Lanthorn
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 01, 2011
    Posts: 97


    Send private message
    Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:39 pm  

    I agree that it is somewhat silly for Vampires not to be able to see in the dark, but then again I am coming from the sensibilities of a 3.0 player. To me undead = being able to see in the dark.
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:24 pm  

    Iressi, I won't hold it against you that you are a 3e person...much. Wink

    Thank you for your input. What are your thoughts on the other two inquiries...from a 3e perspective, of course. Smile

    -Lanthorn
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 01, 2011
    Posts: 97


    Send private message
    Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:44 pm  

    Haha.

    As for the other two...

    2. Yes that is the case in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder.

    3. In 3.0/3.5 You can keep trying to turn over and over again. At least as far as I can tell. So not much help here, though as far as I can tell your interpretation is right.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 10, 2003
    Posts: 1234
    From: New Jersey

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:36 pm  

    Lanthorn,

    Cebrion hit it on the head for 1E/2E not in the description they don't have the vision. Though I always figure especially zombies could sense the living might not see you but know your there.

    While Vampires should have night vision or darkvision and ghosts should be able to sense life or at least make there way around the dark Ethereal vision. So intelligent undead especially those affected by light should not require light to see.

    Later

    Argon
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:44 pm  

    Iressi wrote:

    3. In 3.0/3.5 You can keep trying to turn over and over again. At least as far as I can tell. So not much help here, though as far as I can tell your interpretation is right.


    Not correct, I'm afraid.

    In 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, a Cleric may make Turn Undead attempts (assuming he has taken the feat to do so in Pathfinder) up to three (3) times plus his Charisma modifier per day. If he takes the the Improved Turning Feat, it adds a few attempts per day.

    These attempts may all be used up in a single encounter or spread out over the course of the day. The limit is per day.

    SirXaris
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:29 pm  

    Most interesting all. The plot thickens.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it mention in the module, White Plume Mtn that the vampire named Ctenmiir is unaffected by the (magical, no less!) darkness of the room? Doesn't this imply some type of infravision, or is that power unique to that specific vampire? I am sure there are other seemingly contradictory statements we could find in various other modules or articles.

    -Lanthorn

    p.s. on a hunch, snagged my friend's copy of Van Richten's Guide to Vampires and perused it. According to this tome (not sure where it fits into 1e vs 2e vs 3e formats), vampires do have infravision! See page 10. Happy Not sure about things like spectres, ghouls, wraiths, and the like, but it stands to reason they would.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:31 pm  

    Hopefully all of the undead with strong ties to the negative plane(i.e ones that have a draining ability) would have infravision, but its good that Van Richten's mentions that(it is a 2E product by the way). I would give ghouls a tracking ability though, as I see them as more hound-like. They will track your tasty flesh by scent. I would give undead without any strong connection regular vision, as they don't thirst for anything's blood/flesh/life force. The Van Richten's series covers most of the undead, so they might list something for every one of them. I wonder if any of those bookd mentions sword wraiths at all(Ho ho! A Greyhawk reference!). Razz
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 01, 2007
    Posts: 699
    From: On a Cape on the East Coast

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:34 am  
    Undead Heresy!

    All undead are heretics, and deserve only to be slain ... we care not how they see, for we shall smite them regardless!

    <ahem> Oh, heh. Sorry. I seem to have been channelling a Pelorian paladin or two that I may or may not have played over the years.

    Iressi wrote:

    3. In 3.0/3.5 You can keep trying to turn over and over again. At least as far as I can tell.

    SirXaris wrote:
    Not correct, I'm afraid.


    I think that what was meant, perhaps, was simply that a cleric can keep turning, as long as they have turn attempts left. Maybe I'm misreading that. It could end up being a ping-pong match, albeit withing limitations. Theoretically, a cleric could easily have more attempts than there are rounds of combat ... thus making it essentially a moot point on whether they can continue or not. I think the point of the original post was that it can go back and forth, and that it's not a single attempt per cleric but rather that it can shift back and forth.
    _________________
    Owner and Lead Admin: https://greyhawkonline.com<div>Editor-in-Chief of the Oerth Journal: https://greyhawkonline.com/oerthjournal</div><div>Visit my professional art gallery: https://wkristophnolen.daportfolio.com</div>
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 01, 2011
    Posts: 97


    Send private message
    Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:49 am  

    That is what I meant Icarus. There are feats and what not that let you have more turning attempts.

    However with Pathfinder I should have said unless you have the Turn Undead feat you are simply either healing your allies, or damaging undead via channeling positive energy. Same goes for channeling negative energy you are either hurting the living or healing undead lest you have the Command Undead feat.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 30, 2007
    Posts: 71
    From: Nevond-Nevnend, Duchy of Tenh

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:27 am  

    Lanthorn wrote:
    Cebrion is pretty much correct on the statement that things like infravision, considered a 'special ability,' tend to be listed in writing. For the life of me, I don't remember any overt descriptions of infravision being mentioned (looking it up right now...yeah, not seeing it written...)

    However, the designers, in my less-than-humble opinion for once, really dropped the ball on that one. I've always thought that the greater undead like ghosts, vamps, spectres, wraiths, and wights, must have infravision of some sort. They all are nocturnal, or strongly tend that way (I think wights can go out in the day, but hate it).

    So what is the point of a nocturnal creature NOT being able to see in the dark? That is completely illogical, and a flaw in reasoning. That's like a bat not having echolocation, or raccoon, alligator, coyote, cats, and the whole host of other animals not having 'eyeshine' to navigate through the dark. It seems almost ludicrous to me to picture a spectre or vampire, both who are powerless or destroyed by sunlight, to be blundering around in the dark... This is one of those times I will rely on my logic to override what I consider an oversight.

    Now, if 3e "corrected" for this, GREAT! And it will be one of the (few) rules of later editions that I whole-heartedly embrace.

    That said, I still wonder if 'lesser' undead, those that are not really 'nocturnal' would have infravision...

    Anyone have anything else to add on this conundrum (and the other two)?

    -Lanthorn


    He isn't "pretty much" correct, he IS correct. You are also confusing editions here as well. Between editions, there are differences in abilities and such for PC's, NPC's, and monsters alike. You can not equate 3.5 monsters to 1st edition or Basic, they are as different as night and day. And though you may prefer 3rd, or 1st, or whatever, if it is right for you, use it, what may be right for me, I'll use. There are no "mistakes" in monster abilities and such, the game evolved is all.
    _________________
    Servant of Azmekidom the Most Prudent Despot, The Unapproachable One
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:57 am  

    It goes even deeper for me.

    I don't concern myself with technical issues. Most of the undead we use in the game come from real world legends and lore. What do these legends teach us?

    That the undead can see in the dark. Period.

    I don't try to qualify this ability with scientific jargon, especially in a Sword and Sorcery game.

    So, explain it however YOU want to in YOUR game. It doesn't matter. No one at WotC invented Vampires, Ghosts, Ghouls, or Wraiths, so they can't make hard and fast rules for them. They simply endeavor to explain how these powers work.

    And I can decide that for myself.

    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 10, 2003
    Posts: 1234
    From: New Jersey

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:09 am  

    Lanthorn,

    I realized I did not answer your 2E turning commanding undead question. Yes if both parties are successful in turning and commanding the same group of undead it becomes an opposed roll against the other priest in question. So if both need an 11 to command or turn undead the one with the highest roll wins.

    In the case where both parties roll the same number the tie breaker should go to the priest with the higher level. This is how I ruled it but in 2E it would require another round to break the stalemate. Until one definitive winner is declared.

    If either fails their command or turn attempt on the undead they cannot make another attempt during this encounter. Now if a new undead creature enters the room they can try it on the new undead creature as it has not yet resisted the attempt.

    In 3 and 3.5 you get a set number of attempts that can increase with feat and Charisma ability bonuses. You can try to command or turn undead until your out of attempts. Then you have to wait until you replenish them the next day after a good nights rest.

    I hope this helps.

    Argon
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 01, 2011
    Posts: 97


    Send private message
    Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:13 am  

    MS hit the nail on the head there. While I am no expert on 1st edition I think a lot of the time the answer to most questions are "However you want to do it."

    This is especially true with 1st edition because a lot of things were left somewhat vague or unmentioned. Nothing is wrong with that, in fact you could argue that could be a strength for the game.

    Things started getting more codified in 2nd edition, and obviously by 3rd they could see in the dark. Something that historians run into is people tend to look at the end of a event, and go backwards rather than looking at how things started.

    tigger1tom is right that things have evolved, and changed since the birth of the game. This is one of them, it might have been a oversight originally or it might have been on purpose. In the end its like MS said, "I can decide that for myself."

    Again I am no expert on anything pre-3.0 so I might be missing the nail altogether and hitting my thumb hehe :)
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 10, 2003
    Posts: 1234
    From: New Jersey

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:48 am  

    Iressi,

    The great things about these threads they are open for discussion. So we all get to chime in. Besides I think you read MS input correctly. Though regardless of edition it is still your choice one thing Gary Gygax made perfectly clear to everyone when he created the game.

    I'm just surprised he did not make a table for it. Man he loved tables! Laughing

    Later

    Argon
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 01, 2007
    Posts: 699
    From: On a Cape on the East Coast

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:16 am  
    Comparable Editions, and edition wars

    Tigger1tom wrote:
    He isn't "pretty much" correct, he IS correct. ... You can not equate 3.5 monsters to 1st edition or Basic, they are as different as night and day.

    Yes, we can, in fact. They can be compared, because they are intended to be comparable. The reason that the game has evolved (as you pointed out) is that the designers realized that there were things that had been left out, and design errors made, and the game could be made more clear. (There are a thousand other reasons, but, we're not going into those here.) Skeletons are skeletons in whatever edition that you play, and the game designers went to great lengths to keep the vast majority of monsters as close as possible throughout any edition.
    Quote:
    And though you may prefer 3rd, or 1st, or whatever, if it is right for you, use it, what may be right for me, I'll use. There are no "mistakes" in monster abilities and such, the game evolved is all.

    No one implied that you should do anything other than just that. If you want to bury your head in edition whichever edition you like, you're more than welcome to. The conversation is very nicely using all editions to clarify the intent of the game designers to give assistance to the OP in deciding how he wants to adjudicate his game.

    If the conversation is helpful, guys, it's fantastic! Thank you all for your open ideas about looking at monsters from a wider perspective and openness to all gaming platforms - it's rather refreshing to see. It'd be interesting to see if there's anyone that can compare Savage Worlds or Castles and Crusades in the thread.
    _________________
    Owner and Lead Admin: https://greyhawkonline.com<div>Editor-in-Chief of the Oerth Journal: https://greyhawkonline.com/oerthjournal</div><div>Visit my professional art gallery: https://wkristophnolen.daportfolio.com</div>
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:32 am  

    What powers/limitations do vampires have? I don't know? What do the legends tell us that Dracula could and couldn't do?

    Oh! Wait! WotC owns the IP rights to Dracula!

    Not hardly. Nor did they decide what he could and could not do.

    You can ask the same questions about Casper, Frankenstein, The Mummy, et al.

    Do YOUR thing, it's your game.

    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:44 am  

    It seems I've stirred up a hornet's nest here... I must have access to the Chaos sphere. Embarassed

    It is good that we have a multiplicity of views on this issue (like so many others), and I am guessing that is the whole point of Canonfire! (if I am wrong, I am sure to be corrected). I proposed these questions to garner as much information as possible from the great collective.

    Icarus, it is good to see you chiming in. I agree that the game is a holistic entity that can be seen from a much larger perspective, and as Tiggertom mentioned, 'evolving.' I personally think that some aspects of all the editions can be compared and contrasted in the attempt to make it 'better.' Like Mystic-Scholar, I don't allow myself to be led around completely by rules alone (I am certainly not a LN alignment!), and try to let me own common sense, however little there may be, to guide my interpretations. Let's face it. Anyone who designs any game system cannot fully account for each and every little nit-picky rule and regulation (that's probably why Skip Williams had his Sage Advice column, and why I am constantly asking for input).

    That said, let us all continue, in the spirit of debate and collegiality, to offer our representative opinions and perspectives forth with the mutual understanding that we do it for the love of the game, and Oerth, even if we must "agree to disagree."

    with respect,

    -Lanthorn, Novitiate of Rao
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.34 Seconds