PDA

View Full Version : A question related to OOTS #883



WriterX
2013-04-09, 09:34 PM
Hey all,

Long time lurker, first time caller. I played a number of different D&D Editions and I just realised that nowhere was it explained how exactly does a Vampiric Cleric obtain his or her spells.

See, between Durkon's death and reanimation maybe just an hour has passed, and the fact he had ready spells was what baffled me somewhat. As far as I understand Clerics receive their spells from different gods. Since Durkon is dead and his soul (presumably) passed on where would the Vampiric Durkon get his spells from? Or do Vampire Clerics operate on different rules to ordinary Clerics?

Not being nit-picky, it's just something that struck me as "Never explained before", to myself at least.

I know Malack follows a god, so his spells are justified.

Cheers!

TuggyNE
2013-04-09, 09:42 PM
Undead clerics get their spells the same way anyone else does, though (depending on their deity) they might need to switch; I somehow doubt Thor is thrilled with granting spells to a vampire, especially since he's now Evil.

Also, one of the unpleasant things about intelligent undead is that their soul isn't necessarily passed on; this is especially true for liches and vampires and ghosts and such-like, modulo any required alignment changes. Malack is still the same person he was before he got vampirized, and Xykon is too. (Durkon is currently under a totally-not-[mind-affecting]-effect that seriously curbs his independent action and thought, which is why he's acting so out of character.)

Not precisely sure who Durkon got spells from, but off-hand, I'd suggest Nergal as well.

Edit: Also, welcome to the forums! :smallcool:

jindra34
2013-04-09, 09:46 PM
Its still, in essence, the same character and the same day. So logically any spells prepared/granted still are. Just not ending up getting used as expected.

Logic
2013-04-09, 10:28 PM
Its still, in essence, the same character and the same day. So logically any spells prepared/granted still are. Just not ending up getting used as expected.

This theory is also supported by the Forgotten Realms adventure/storyline concerning Drow clerics of Lloth. At one point, Lloth stopped granting her clerics spells. However, the rulebook explicitly stated that any spells a Lloth worshiping cleric had not cast in the intervening time were still available to the character.

Rules-wise, Durkon is presumably using a previously prepared Summon Monster spell (though, a few strips earlier it was implied or explicitly stated he was out of higher level spells, so it must be a low level version.)

oball
2013-04-09, 10:39 PM
Durkon had Planar Ally prepared at least once (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0865.html), intending to summon celestials to help guard the gate. It has a ten minute casting time but the Giant has been known to handwave (or forget) casting times before.

TaiLiu
2013-04-09, 10:44 PM
Durkon had Planar Ally prepared at least once (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0865.html), intending to summon celestials to help guard the gate. It has a ten minute casting time but the Giant has been known to handwave (or forget) casting times before.
Well, during the battle, Durkon stated that Planar Ally would be of no immediate help to him because it would take too long to cast. I imagine that the panel where the demons were called was when the spellcasters just finished casting their spells.

Zahhak
2013-04-09, 11:25 PM
I think some systems allow you to partly summon a spell with a cast time. So, you could cut the cast time in half by declaring at the start of the game day "I'm going to partly summon a planar ally". So, they might have already partly summoned their planar allies and just completed it in that panel.

And if there are no systems that do that and this is just a house rule, then it should be a rule, because it makes sense.

Edit: Oh, and on a more general note, I agree with the previously stated things about Durkon having left over spells to use and probably using Nergal for now on.

TaiLiu
2013-04-09, 11:27 PM
I think some systems allow you to partly summon a spell with a cast time. So, you could cut the cast time in half by declaring at the start of the game day "I'm going to partly summon a planar ally". So, they might have already partly summoned their planar allies and just completed it in that panel.

And if there are no systems that do that and this is just a house rule, then it should be a rule, because it makes sense.
:smallconfused: How so? How would one 'partially summon a planar ally?'

Rhynn
2013-04-10, 01:35 AM
Its still, in essence, the same character and the same day. So logically any spells prepared/granted still are. Just not ending up getting used as expected.

This is also supported by older editions of D&D in rules - once you prepare a priest spell, you have the spell. You get the spell from your deity when you prepare it, not when you cast it. (Also, spells up to 3rd level come from you, not your deity. A priest disfavored by their deity could still prepare and use spells up to 3rd level.) In Spelljammer, for instance, you can't prepare spells (above 3rd level) when outside your deity's influence, but you retain any spells already prepared until you use them.

Zahhak
2013-04-10, 09:03 AM
How so? How would one 'partially summon a planar ally?'

No, you can partly cast any spell with a cast time so you don't have to spend 5 minutes casting a spell. Like having it more prepared then normal.

Lapak
2013-04-10, 09:08 AM
Durkon had Planar Ally prepared at least once (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0865.html), intending to summon celestials to help guard the gate. It has a ten minute casting time but the Giant has been known to handwave (or forget) casting times before.Probably handwaving/passing over the time without note here, given that the Linear Guild folks are standing around discussing strategy and there's no hard connection time-wise between what we're seeing here and what the Order is doing below. Planar Ally is definitely the most likely already-prepared spell that Durkon had that could summon a fiend now that he's evil.

Ashtagon
2013-04-10, 09:14 AM
No, you can partly cast any spell with a cast time so you don't have to spend 5 minutes casting a spell. Like having it more prepared then normal.

Cite needed.

LibraryOgre
2013-04-10, 10:21 AM
No, you can partly cast any spell with a cast time so you don't have to spend 5 minutes casting a spell. Like having it more prepared then normal.


Cite needed.

That's actually the default assumption for 3.x spellcasting. It's why it's called "preparing" rather than "memorizing".



Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in her mind as a nearly cast spell until she uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until she abandons it.

For Planar Ally, this is 10 minutes, but I've heard the same in other systems... in the Guardians of the Flame novels, this imposes some limitations on what spells can be cast normally, but it's a great advantage.

some guy
2013-04-10, 10:55 AM
Mind you, clerics don't have to be followers of a god or pantheon, they can also be followers of a cause. At the moment Durkon can be a follower of Chaos, Destruction, Evil, or Trickery.

Also, spells as Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm) specify that certain prepared spells are lost after raising the dead. No where in the vampire section it is stated that prepared spells are lost.

So posibilities;

Durkon has no god or cause and still his prepared spells, but must gain a god or cause to prepare new ones.
Durkon is now following an evil god or cause and still has his prepared spells and can prepare new spells.

Either way, he could still cast Planar Ally.

Ashtagon
2013-04-10, 12:03 PM
That's actually the default assumption for 3.x spellcasting. It's why it's called "preparing" rather than "memorizing".


Oh, I know that much. I just don't see any rule that let's to "super-extra-prepare" a spell that normally has, say, a ten minute casting time when merely "ordinarily prepared", so that it can be cast in just five minutes.

Jay R
2013-04-10, 01:13 PM
There's no continuing conversation, and everybody has moved. What makes you think it didn't take ten minutes?

Waspinator
2013-04-10, 05:06 PM
Honestly, given what we've seen of OOTS Thor, he probably hasn't noticed that Durkon is now a vampire.

Randomatic
2013-04-10, 07:28 PM
Clerics
Vampire clerics lose their ability to turn undead but gain the ability to rebuke undead. This ability does not affect the vampire’s controller or any other vampires that a master controls. A vampire cleric has access to two of the following domains: Chaos, Destruction, Evil, or Trickery.

From the SRD, vampire clerics have special rules, regardless of whether they worship a deity or not.
Rich also referred to that entry from the SRD in the strip's discussion thread.


Also, one of the unpleasant things about intelligent undead is that their soul isn't necessarily passed on; this is especially true for liches and vampires and ghosts and such-like, modulo any required alignment changes.

I thought it was always obvious that all undead still had their souls.
Both as an explanation why you can't use raise dead on an undead creature unless it either consents or you destroy its undead form, and why the spells to create undead have the Evil descriptor.
Undead being a mindless tool wouldn't be evil, but binding their soul to their rotting corpse, and preventing them from going on to their afterlife is.

Talakeal
2013-04-10, 07:32 PM
From the SRD, vampire clerics have special rules, regardless of whether they worship a deity or not.
Rich also referred to that entry from the SRD in the strip's discussion thread.



I thought it was always obvious that all undead still had their souls.
Both as an explanation why you can't use raise dead on an undead creature unless it either consents or you destroy its undead form, and why the spells to create undead have the Evil descriptor.
Undead being a mindless tool wouldn't be evil, but binding their soul to their rotting corpse, and preventing them from going on to their afterlife is.

That would make a lot of sense, but that is not how the D&D rules are written. As far as I know there has never been any mention of undead imprisoning souls, and most undead can be made from ancient corpses, the souls of which have long departed on gone on to the outer planes.

Instead 3.5 undead are evil because they are usually the minions of evil and holy abilities such as smite, holy weapons, holy word, protection from evil, etc wouldn't work against them otherwise, and damn the logical consequences.

Randomatic
2013-04-10, 07:38 PM
That would make a lot of sense, but that is not how the D&D rules are written. As far as I know there has never been any mention of undead imprisoning souls, and most undead can be made from ancient corpses, the souls of which have long departed on gone on to the outer planes.

Instead 3.5 undead are evil because they are usually the minions of evil and holy abilities such as smite, holy weapons, holy word, protection from evil, etc wouldn't work against them otherwise, and damn the logical consequences.

I don't recall anywhere that it's explicit, but the only other ways to stop a true resurrection that I'm aware of is by either trapping or destroying the target's soul.

Though you do bring up a good point about the ancient corpses, so I guess that does leave it more complicated.

I also think we're probably wandering away from the point of this thread. :smallsmile:

karkus
2013-04-10, 08:36 PM
Contrary to this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html) comic, the gods do not grant spells casting-by-casting as the day goes on; they grant the spells to the clerics when they prepare them.

LibraryOgre
2013-04-10, 09:24 PM
I thought it was always obvious that all undead still had their souls.
Both as an explanation why you can't use raise dead on an undead creature unless it either consents or you destroy its undead form, and why the spells to create undead have the Evil descriptor.
Undead being a mindless tool wouldn't be evil, but binding their soul to their rotting corpse, and preventing them from going on to their afterlife is.

I've put some thought into what goes on after death, per what happens in the D&D rules.

http://rpg-crank.livejournal.com/37072.html

TuggyNE
2013-04-11, 12:11 AM
I've put some thought into what goes on after death, per what happens in the D&D rules.

http://rpg-crank.livejournal.com/37072.html

That was quite interesting, but about the only thing it didn't specifically address (as far as I could tell) was why someone whose body has been re-animated can't be raised.

Alleran
2013-04-11, 09:13 AM
Honestly, given what we've seen of OOTS Thor, he probably hasn't noticed that Durkon is now a vampire.
He was arguing with Hel about where a certain soul would go after death in one recent comic - I'd guess that, given what happened to Durkon, the argument was about said dwarven cleric's afterlife destination.

LibraryOgre
2013-04-11, 10:37 AM
That was quite interesting, but about the only thing it didn't specifically address (as far as I could tell) was why someone whose body has been re-animated can't be raised.

So far as I can tell, that's never been the case. So long as the corpse is relatively intact (depending on the level of magic used), you can ress someone who has been turned undead.

Randomatic
2013-04-11, 11:23 AM
So far as I can tell, that's never been the case. So long as the corpse is relatively intact (depending on the level of magic used), you can ress someone who has been turned undead.

That changes depending on edition. I double checked my 2nd Edition books, and there is no mention of them not working on the formerly Undead. In 3.5 the spells Raise Dead and Reincarnation both stipulate that they don't work on anyone that died from Death Magic or that had been Undead. Resurrection and True Resurrection will work on the formerly Undead, but only after the Undead creature has been destroyed.

The ability to use Animate Dead or Create Undead on a corpse that is too old for True Resurrection, or even the ability to cast it on a dead body that was True Resurrected does complicate the matter though.

Alaris
2013-04-11, 12:46 PM
Tell you what, you read the vampire template entry, particularly the part where it explicitly says that vampire clerics can still cast spells just with different domain access, and you tell me where it says anything about gods or temporary loss of access there. It doesn't. Vampire clerics do not need to worship a god to cast spells, because NO cleric needs a god to cast spells. The rules specifically allow for "non-theistic" clerics, and explains exactly what the effects of turning into a vampire has on a cleric: Rebuke instead of Turn, different domains. Period.

The only thing worse than the usual irrelevant rules pedantry is incorrect irrelevant rules pedantry.

The Giant explained this in his most recent thread (I am finding it hard to find his actual post, but I can quote it from someone else who quoted it).

Put simply, Clerics don't need a God to gain their powers, they only need a cause. And Durkon, no longer gaining his from Thor (due to alignment restrictions) is gaining his from a cause, presumably. I doubt he simply switched to serving Nergal, as even if Malack ordered him to, I doubt a God accepts mind-controlled followers.

Nonetheless, Durkon also still had spells from that day, which I don't think go away when you 'fall.' You can't get anymore, but I don't think you lose the ones you currently have.

WriterX
2013-04-11, 08:40 PM
I was not aware that Clerics did not need to follow a god to receive their spells. I almost exclusively played in the Faerun setting, and every time I was told that for a Cleric to have spells he must follow a god. If a Cleric lost favor with a god he or she would lose his or her spells and powers entirely, until redemption was found or the cleric began to follow a different deity. Then in the Book of Vile Darkness I read of Clerics who "stole" the power from the gods, so they worked just like Clerics, without the need of the god (Ur-Priests).

You can see why I had a bit of a hard time understanding how Durkon was capable of using his spells when from a purely theoretical standpoint he did not proclaim to follow any new deity.

Although... that does answer how do certain "Mindless" undead priests (skeleton/zombie clerics) still manage to cast divine spells (although I might be running into another complicated area within the rules).

TuggyNE
2013-04-11, 08:48 PM
I was not aware that Clerics did not need to follow a god to receive their spells. I almost exclusively played in the Faerun setting, and every time I was told that for a Cleric to have spells he must follow a god.

That's because that's an FR-specific rule. It doesn't apply in Greyhawk (nominally the default), Eberron, Ravenloft, or wherever else. OOTS definitely isn't FR, so that rule just doesn't exist.