PDA

View Full Version : Hypothesis about Belkar's death



CoffeeIncluded
2013-04-12, 01:50 PM
This could be based on my misunderstanding of DnD mechanics, so please tell me if I'm wrong.

I get the feeling that after Belkar's current and possibly future actions, Roy will realize that he was in in the wrong to just run out the clock on Belkar, that it's wrong to leave a teammate to die. He learned it already with Elan but now he needs to realize that it applies to Belkar as well. But even as Roy realizes that Belkar's a member of the team and that he should try to defy the prophecy and save Belkar, or to at least raise him after they get Durkon or another cleric back and thus find a loophole in the "Last breath ever", that option will be taken from them.

Why?

Because Belkar's been drained by Durkula and Malack to the brink of death. This means he's almost certainly down to 1 con, but he could have been level drained down to level 1 as well (we know he's suffered both blood loss (con damage) and energy drain (negative levels) per Malack in this update). And con drain is permanent. And so is level drain (level loss) if you fail the fort saves. Which is quite likely with a con of 1, even with a good fort save progression. Fail the first save and you lose a level, which means you lose some of the class fort save and so it becomes harder and harder to stop the level loss spiral with each failed save.

What this means is that there's a very good possibility that until the Order can get their hands on a bunch of Restoration spells (which only a cleric or high-leveled paladin can cast), Belkar's going to be walking around with 1 con. At level 1.

Say, what's one of the clauses in the raise dead spell line?


Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell loses one level (or 1 Hit Die) when it is raised, just as if it had lost a level or a Hit Die to an energy-draining creature. If the subject is 1st level, it loses 2 points of Constitution instead (if this would reduce its Con to 0 or less, it can’t be raised).

martianmister
2013-04-12, 01:53 PM
I get the feeling that after Belkar's current and possibly future actions, Roy will realize that he was in in the wrong to just run out the clock on Belkar, that it's wrong to leave a teammate to die. He learned it already with Elan but now he needs to realize that it applies to Belkar as well.

Why? Belkar is evil.

CoffeeIncluded
2013-04-12, 01:55 PM
Why? Belkar is evil.

Because he's still a member of the team, and the fake character development isn't so fake anymore. Given enough time, Belkar might actually make it to chaotic neutral. Too bad he doesn't have enough time (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelFaceDoorSlam) (sorry for the TvTropes link. If it makes you feel better I need to get back to work too.).

Dewani90
2013-04-12, 08:00 PM
and... we care about how the spell is written, because?

just remember that OOTS is loosely based on DnD rules, with emphasis on "loosely", just look at Miko's build, it was horrible and she was still the most powerful paladin of azure city, the potion of glibness would not make you capable of convincing a guard that he spontaneously turned into a Wallabi/Kangaroo even if you are an amazing liar, the ring of regeneration cannot heal you that fast and in real time, banjo could smite someone with only 1 follower (altough it was a puny lightning), weather control cannot launch a rampaging lightning storm on some tree-fiends, and the list goes on an on, so unless Belkar is killed by a snarl claw attack he can still be raised with no loss, and I'm pretty sure he didn't lost levels, or con, he just doesn't have a lot of energy left after he was used as a vampire buffet...

so stop thinking by the book, it will only give you a theory with no bases for the actual comic

Kish
2013-04-12, 08:15 PM
and... we care about how the spell is written, because?

just remember that OOTS is loosely based on DnD rules, with emphasis on "loosely", just look at Miko's build, it was horrible and she was still the most powerful paladin of azure city, the potion of glibness would not make you capable of convincing a guard that he spontaneously turned into a Wallabi/Kangaroo even if you are an amazing liar, the ring of regeneration cannot heal you that fast and in real time, banjo could smite someone with only 1 follower (altough it was a puny lightning), weather control cannot launch a rampaging lightning storm on some tree-fiends, and the list goes on an on, so unless Belkar is killed by a snarl claw attack he can still be raised with no loss, and I'm pretty sure he didn't lost levels, or con, he just doesn't have a lot of energy left after he was used as a vampire buffet...

so stop thinking by the book, it will only give you a theory with no bases for the actual comic
While I am all in favor of not basing arguments on a slavish adherence to D&D rules...your argument that we should completely ignore D&D and just treat this as a serial graphic novel that used to have something to do with D&D (...vampires drain neither levels nor constitution? What?) manages to be significantly worse even than doing so.

CoffeeIncluded
2013-04-12, 08:25 PM
Yeah, uh, Mass Death Ward was cast for a reason, it protects from level loss and con drain, both of which Belkar pretty much explicitly got. And in a case like this? Adherence to DnD rules would make excellent drama. Rich already adheres to resurrection causing permanent level loss (remember when the Oracle was revived? He complained about having to go and get that lost level back. Or when Belkar was so happy about finally leveling off the Wights, only to be level drained by one of them and going, "...Never mind."), this would just make it even crueler--Roy was willing to let Belkar die and he'd take his last breath ever because nobody would bother to go after him, but if this happens then he'd take his last breath ever because they can't go after him.

:roy: "What do you mean you can't bring him back?"

Belkar<3
2013-04-12, 08:47 PM
I don't think Roy cares or even notices Belkar's recent character development. And he's stated before that he thinks that he's faking his old "character development". So . . . Why should Roy give a crap. (Not that I don't like Belkar, just that I don't think Roy is going to go through a major change like that.)

Dusk Eclipse
2013-04-12, 10:09 PM
and... we care about how the spell is written, because?

just remember that OOTS is loosely based on DnD rules, with emphasis on "loosely", just look at Miko's build, it was horrible and she was still the most powerful paladin of azure city, the potion of glibness would not make you capable of convincing a guard that he spontaneously turned into a Wallabi/Kangaroo even if you are an amazing liar, the ring of regeneration cannot heal you that fast and in real time, banjo could smite someone with only 1 follower (altough it was a puny lightning), weather control cannot launch a rampaging lightning storm on some tree-fiends, and the list goes on an on, so unless Belkar is killed by a snarl claw attack he can still be raised with no loss, and I'm pretty sure he didn't lost levels, or con, he just doesn't have a lot of energy left after he was used as a vampire buffet...

so stop thinking by the book, it will only give you a theory with no bases for the actual comic

Eh no, while Rich has stopped making fun of the rules on regular basis, the setting is still based on D&d 3.5 Ed, therefore yes, we must assume Raise Dead can't raise level 1 people with 1 con.

SaintRidley
2013-04-12, 10:55 PM
the potion of glibness would not make you capable of convincing a guard that he spontaneously turned into a Wallabi/Kangaroo even if you are an amazing liar

Actually, yeah, it can. Haley's what, level 15, with max Bluff, with a Charisma modof anywhere between +1 and +4, that potion of Glibness brings her anywhere from +49 to +53 on Bluff. At those kinds of skill levels, you definitely qualify to start using Bluff like Suggestion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#bluff) with a reasonable chance of success. The guard? Probably your bog standard level 1 or 2 guard with no sense motive or wisdom to speak of. Which means Haley's wallaby bluff has about a straight 50% shot of working.

It's ridiculous. But that strip was pointing out just how ridiculous it gets, all while staying perfectly within the rules for the skill.

Forikroder
2013-04-12, 11:16 PM
Belkar was nowhere near one level, i think he only got level drained once from Durkola http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html (panel 4) http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0870.html panel 4 here is almost certainly a harm spell instead of a level drain (due to the smoke rising off Belkar which is absent from when Durkola got him)

not sure how much many levels a vampire can drain in one attack but Belkar should still have msot of his levels perfectly safe the only problem is his massive con damage

Mutant Sheep
2013-04-12, 11:32 PM
Belkar was nowhere near one level, i think he only got level drained once from Durkola http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0879.html (panel 4) http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0870.html panel 4 here is almost certainly a harm spell instead of a level drain (due to the smoke rising off Belkar which is absent from when Durkola got him)

not sure how much many levels a vampire can drain in one attack but Belkar should still have msot of his levels perfectly safe the only problem is his massive con damage

I read "Do not drain his last drop" as a command to well, leave Belkar with the bare minimum he could live with. (I doubt Durkula would stop at one level, due to his whole "bloodthirst" thing.:smalltongue:). Leaving Belkar with his last livable drop would leave him at 1-4 Con and ? Level, but it would still take more than one level.

Forikroder
2013-04-12, 11:45 PM
I read "Do not drain his last drop" as a command to well, leave Belkar with the bare minimum he could live with. (I doubt Durkula would stop at one level, due to his whole "bloodthirst" thing.:smalltongue:). Leaving Belkar with his last livable drop would leave him at 1-4 Con and ? Level, but it would still take more than one level.

he said drink but do not drain the last drop, considering that Durkola woke up hungering for blood when a vampire first awakens he probably has a very strong need for finding blood so i think his drinking of belkar wasnt about tactics or strategy but jsut feeding Durkola before he loses control and feeds on someone important (most likely this is written into the vampire curse to force good natured people to feed after awakening to destroy whatever morals they have left and teach them the pleasure)

i doubt Malack wasted alot of time letting Durkola energy drain him too since Malack literally doesnt see the rest of the OoTS as threats (i mean he and Durkola have a good chance of dominating Elan and Haley (at the very very least they can get elan and Belkar) so its really going to be Roy and possibly haley fighting alone

really if anything Malack would prefer Belkar in tip top condition to dominate him again later

CoffeeIncluded
2013-04-12, 11:48 PM
Belkar's got two level drains, minimum in him (Malack didn't cast Harm on him since he would have said Harm). Depending on how long Durkula was holding him, he's probably got more. And I also interpreted "Do not drain his last drop," as leaving Belkar just this side of alive. I get the sense he's a stiff breeze away from death at this point, and I think Belkar knows it too.

Forikroder
2013-04-12, 11:58 PM
Belkar's got two level drains, minimum in him (Malack didn't cast Harm on him since he would have said Harm). Depending on how long Durkula was holding him, he's probably got more. And I also interpreted "Do not drain his last drop," as leaving Belkar just this side of alive. I get the sense he's a stiff breeze away from death at this point, and I think Belkar knows it too.

people never smoke aftertaking a level drain though

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html

even with all the level draining Tsukiko got she never sizzled it was definently an inflict that Belkar face tanked

Mutant Sheep
2013-04-13, 12:02 AM
he said drink but do not drain the last drop, considering that Durkola woke up hungering for blood when a vampire first awakens he probably has a very strong need for finding blood so i think his drinking of belkar wasnt about tactics or strategy but jsut feeding Durkola before he loses control and feeds on someone important (most likely this is written into the vampire curse to force good natured people to feed after awakening to destroy whatever morals they have left and teach them the pleasure)

i doubt Malack wasted alot of time letting Durkola energy drain him too since Malack literally doesnt see the rest of the OoTS as threats (i mean he and Durkola have a good chance of dominating Elan and Haley (at the very very least they can get elan and Belkar) so its really going to be Roy and possibly haley fighting aloneI think that Durkula would interpret it (being a bloodthirsty and not-free-willed unnatural aberration of nature) as drinking however much he wants, as long as Belkar is still alive when he finishes. Durkula doesn't care about Belkar, he just wants blood. Getting as much blood as possible seems a good thing.

I read it as there being a brief timeskip (Durkon stopped drinking by panel four), when Malack feels like he should free Belkar. It's a "Oh Durkula's done drinking, time to skedaddle" moment. Though if he doesn't think they're a threat, why not let Durkula get all the blood he wants? Not like they're in danger then.:smallconfused:

Forikroder
2013-04-13, 12:06 AM
I think that Durkula would interpret it (being a bloodthirsty and not-free-willed unnatural aberration of nature) as drinking however much he wants, as long as Belkar is still alive when he finishes. Durkula doesn't care about Belkar, he just wants blood. Getting as much blood as possible seems a good thing.

I read it as there being a brief timeskip (Durkon stopped drinking by panel four), when Malack feels like he should free Belkar. It's a "Oh Durkula's done drinking, time to skedaddle" moment. Though if he doesn't think they're a threat, why not let Durkula get all the blood he wants? Not like they're in danger then.:smallconfused:

Durkula drinking blood deals con damage

Durkula slapping belkar drains levels

in other words Durkula could drink as much as he wants and as long as Belkar is left with 1 con it wouldnt interfere with ressurecting him

Kish
2013-04-13, 04:28 AM
I read "Do not drain his last drop" as a command to well, leave Belkar with the bare minimum he could live with. (I doubt Durkula would stop at one level, due to his whole "bloodthirst" thing.:smalltongue:). Leaving Belkar with his last livable drop would leave him at 1-4 Con and ? Level, but it would still take more than one level.
No. Vampire blood drain drains Constitution only, not Constitution and levels. A vampire's slam attack drains levels (well, inflicts negative levels, not quite the same), and as Forikroder said, Durkon wasn't beating up on Belkar.

factotum
2013-04-13, 05:38 AM
But even as Roy realizes that Belkar's a member of the team and that he should try to defy the prophecy and save Belkar, or to at least raise him after they get Durkon or another cleric back and thus find a loophole in the "Last breath ever", that option will be taken from them.


I think there's a far simpler reason why they won't get the option--they won't find a high enough level cleric! It took them more than three months to get Roy raised from the dead, and Stickworld isn't Forgotten Realms--you don't get high-level clerics working as bartenders in every little village you pass.

SadisticFishing
2013-04-20, 02:39 AM
I don't get why people keep saying "very loosely based on 3.5 rules". No. It's 100% based in 3.5 rules, with a bit of DM fudgery, and not very much, either. Mr. Burlew is obviously a masterful DM, and it crosses over into his story-telling very well. Rules don't remove drama in any, in fact they increase it because you know what the stakes are.

Coldwind
2013-04-20, 04:43 AM
I put my bet on Belkar will be disintegrated by Vaarsuvius while s/he is controlled by fiends.

On the other hand, if he won't die soon enough, I will believe that old Belkar is already dead. He is now quite different (and still progressing) than before. Like Haley said, "member of the month".

As mentioned before, twisting words is a feature for the Oracle (remember the part about Belkar's relevance with Roy's death, even Celia doesn't seem convinced about it).

Belkar's character development is something important which Rich wants to imply, so maybe Rich won't give up on Belkar, hopefully.

Kish
2013-04-20, 05:06 AM
As mentioned before, twisting words is a feature for the Oracle (remember the part about Belkar's relevance with Roy's death, even Celia doesn't seem convinced about it).
As mentioned every time someone brings this up, don't confuse the Oracle spending one strip trolling Belkar with the actual fulfillment of Belkar's prophecy, which was him causing the death of the Oracle by stabbing him with his daggers.

Coldwind
2013-04-20, 01:54 PM
As mentioned every time someone brings this up, don't confuse the Oracle spending one strip trolling Belkar with the actual fulfillment of Belkar's prophecy, which was him causing the death of the Oracle by stabbing him with his daggers.

Well maybe Tiamat is the source of the twisting words, not Oracle. He only says what he is allowed to say in green speech balloons, so that is still a possibility.

sims796
2013-04-20, 02:29 PM
No. Vampire blood drain drains Constitution only, not Constitution and levels. A vampire's slam attack drains levels (well, inflicts negative levels, not quite the same), and as Forikroder said, Durkon wasn't beating up on Belkar.

Negative levels turn into Drained levels if not cured soon, right?

Kish
2013-04-20, 02:31 PM
Well maybe Tiamat is the source of the twisting words, not Oracle. He only says what he is allowed to say in green speech balloons, so that is still a possibility.
What are you talking about?

factotum
2013-04-20, 04:26 PM
Negative levels turn into Drained levels if not cured soon, right?

If you make a Fortitude save 24 hours after acquiring the negative level then the effects go away and you're back to normal--so theoretically Belkar could get his levels back provided he's still alive in 24 hours' time!

SaintRidley
2013-04-20, 04:34 PM
If you make a Fortitude save 24 hours after acquiring the negative level then the effects go away and you're back to normal--so theoretically Belkar could get his levels back provided he's still alive in 24 hours' time!

Of course, his drained Constitution means his Fortitude save is lowered, and each negative level imposes a -1 penalty to saving throws that he has to deal with. It's not going to be easy to save and keep levels.

Auldrin
2013-04-20, 04:40 PM
Are there actually any convincing arguments around that the oracle wasn't just lying to screw with him? Aside from 'that would be a huge and dissapointing red herring' or whatever, I'm talking about other quasi-prophecies which came true, word of G, etc

I don't expect it to be the case, just curious about whether it's been discussed, and what the arguments were.

Kish
2013-04-20, 04:57 PM
Are there actually any convincing arguments around that the oracle wasn't just lying to screw with him? Aside from 'that would be a huge and dissapointing red herring' or whatever, I'm talking about other quasi-prophecies which came true, word of G, etc

I don't expect it to be the case, just curious about whether it's been discussed, and what the arguments were.
No, none.

Sometimes people propose that the Oracle is lying and then, in an effort to prove it, write massive wall of text arguments "demonstrating" that everything the Oracle has ever said is a lie. Those arguments get demolished. Sometimes people propose that the Oracle lies whenever he's not in the green glowies but tells the truth when he's in the green glowies. Those get argued with or asked for support. But only one person, that I can recall, ever proposed "the Oracle could be flat-out lying, just about Belkar dying, not saying anything about everything the Oracle ever said," and left it at that. It got no reply because...the only evidence that the Oracle isn't simply lying is a belief that Rich wouldn't write that.

Although, if you're looking for other things said outside the green glowies that came true, Roy and Elan did shortly have a pair of family reunions (Elan's brother kidnapped Roy's sister and contacted them). And (prequel spoiler) Eugene Greenhilt did indeed become Ghost Dad without ever finding his way back to the Oracle. Also, the Oracle is willing to bet his life--er, his return to life--on being able to foresee his death with no green glowies.

Auldrin
2013-04-20, 06:51 PM
stuff

Actually, those two are exactly the sort of non-glowy prophecies I was talking about, thanks. I'd definitely put him lying about that in the realms of technically possible but with no evidence pointing towards it. Shame, I like Belkar.

Olinser
2013-04-20, 10:12 PM
I think there's a far simpler reason why they won't get the option--they won't find a high enough level cleric! It took them more than three months to get Roy raised from the dead, and Stickworld isn't Forgotten Realms--you don't get high-level clerics working as bartenders in every little village you pass.

It only took 3 months because they weren't LOOKING. Haley and Belkar were hanging out with the Resistance, sitting on their butts waiting for V and Durkon to come find them. When Celia actually started looking, it took them less than 2 weeks to find a cleric - and most of that was travel time and a useless trip to the Oracle. They found a cleric in literally the first town they went.

Olinser
2013-04-20, 10:14 PM
and... we care about how the spell is written, because?

just remember that OOTS is loosely based on DnD rules, with emphasis on "loosely", just look at Miko's build, it was horrible and she was still the most powerful paladin of azure city, the potion of glibness would not make you capable of convincing a guard that he spontaneously turned into a Wallabi/Kangaroo even if you are an amazing liar, the ring of regeneration cannot heal you that fast and in real time, banjo could smite someone with only 1 follower (altough it was a puny lightning), weather control cannot launch a rampaging lightning storm on some tree-fiends, and the list goes on an on, so unless Belkar is killed by a snarl claw attack he can still be raised with no loss, and I'm pretty sure he didn't lost levels, or con, he just doesn't have a lot of energy left after he was used as a vampire buffet...

so stop thinking by the book, it will only give you a theory with no bases for the actual comic

BTW - your avatar, is that Moka?

factotum
2013-04-21, 02:42 AM
They found a cleric in literally the first town they went.

A cleric who wasn't high enough level to raise Roy from the dead. Unless you're suggesting the Order can put a Sending in to Durkon to get Belkar raised? There are certain recent events in the comic that might make that somewhat unproductive... :smalltongue:

Kish
2013-04-21, 06:52 AM
The cleric they found had a Resurrection scroll which he was willing to use for pay. He just didn't use it because other events caused him to leave town before they had Roy's body back.

quasit
2013-04-21, 07:37 AM
I'm not sure if belkar's death will be just because he blew his saves against negative levels, I'm looking forward to something a bit more...dramatic. However that might happen just in the worst moment possible to heighten the scene's drama up to eleven; so maybe.
About the negative levels... Im not sure if belkar got that ludicrous ammount of negative levels , but I pointed out on a previous post (not sure which one) that if belkar reverted to a level before he got, say , a constitution enhancement of +1 (migh have had one at 12 or 16) and he's at 1 CON... well, unless Restoration could be cast on his corpse or somehow his constitution could be fixed or the drain resets after death, a permanent CON stat of 0 means he'd be deader than dead. Although this seems quite a loophole to me, it's still a possibility.

Kish
2013-04-21, 08:56 AM
I think the game would mention somewhere if "Constitution drained to 0" meant "beyond the reach of a True Resurrection."

(There is no indication in the system that there's any problem Raising someone whose Constitution was reduced to 0 by a vampire draining, unless they rise as a vampire or vampire spawn, in which case Resurrection is needed rather than merely Raise Dead.)

quasit
2013-04-21, 10:24 AM
The problem I see with having a 0 con is, that no living creature can have a con value of zero (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Ability_Score_Loss): Ie, anything that damages/drains all your con effectively slays you (Therkla). The point is that I'm not sure if the drained stats persist after death (or if a restoration can be cast on a spirit, for that matter). Else, you migh trying to bring back to life somebody who will get instantly a critical existence failure, being brought back with a con score that states that you'll be dead by that point...
Actually...could the "will draw his last breath ever" profecy come to be a strange bogus due to Belkar being resurrecten into a body that cannot be properly alive? It's quite a stretch but...does any kind of undead or "unalive" match this crazy scenario?

Ah, forgot [EDIT]: Probably the book was written, they'd had thought that somebody slain by having negative con of 0 could be direct result of any vampire's bite and not being reduced to an inch of his CON, and then permanently lose that last point for another reason (namely, reverting to a lower level) that doesn't rule the victim raising as a vampire after death.They might simply have overlooked it.

However, a vamp with no CON score slain and then resurrected should be brought back as his former self (recover his pre-vamp stats), despite it's not clarified anywhere (probably common sense on behalf of the DM).
So the logic points that his ability drain might wear off after death, on the other hand, seems that it's not written anywhere. :smallsigh:

Luckily enough, this webcomic puts ahead the story to the rulebook, so if in the end this plethora of "ifs" are right, would be because of the plot.

tl/dr : Think I ranted a bit over there...:smallredface:

Kish
2013-04-21, 10:31 AM
I think the drained stats must go away after death. If not, draining Constitution to 0 is a form of killing that trumps even True Resurrection and the books would indicate as much somewhere.

Any form of unbreathing undead would still be in the world; the Oracle said Belkar is "not long for the world" (and also said that "your buddy is not long for the world" is the same statement as "The halfling shouldn't bother funding his IRA," "He might want to savor his next birthday cake," and "Belkar Bitterleaf will draw his last breath--ever--before the end of the year"), so no, it's not a short joke, or anything that hinges on any one of those descriptions applying to Belkar.

quasit
2013-04-21, 11:03 AM
Hmnnn I've not the monster manual with me, but I remember that most (if not all) monsters who cause permanent constitution drain (not damage) have a nasty side effect that if the victims drained ability stat is reduced to zero, either raises the victim as a undead or completely obliterrates him/her. So they perhaps didn't count on the victing surviving with a marginal stat value, not being able to restore it, and them losing it due to a "downgrade" (because of negative levels).
If true resurrection can fix it (it think it could), the problem would be solved (as the spell can bring back anybody with his soul avaliable out of thin air). But that brings another problem: having a 17 cleric willing to bring back the victim.
Also, for that matter, did anybody thought before that the Belkster might just got tired of his life and rather remain dead and rest peacefully? Doesn't seem very likely for me, unless all his character development results of so much regret for his past life that he just don't want to go back to the world anymore and rather face whatever is waiting for him in the afterlife.

Raineh Daze
2013-04-21, 11:10 AM
Clearly, Belkar will be too occupied trying to take over the Abyss to come back. :smalltongue:

quasit
2013-04-21, 11:25 AM
Who knows? Maybe spends the rest of the story doing in the afterlife what he (thinks) is best at: slaughtering (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0497.html) mooks. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html)
(However I'd find it weird, one of the plot points of the story revolves a bit around "what measure is a mook?")

Zmeoaice
2013-04-21, 03:55 PM
Clearly, Belkar will be too occupied trying to take over the Abyss to come back. :smalltongue:

Exactly. It's why he said Shojo didn't want to be raised. In this world Belkar has to deal with the rules and confines of his party and the nations they're in.

CoffeeIncluded
2013-04-21, 04:06 PM
I'm not sure if belkar's death will be just because he blew his saves against negative levels, I'm looking forward to something a bit more...dramatic. However that might happen just in the worst moment possible to heighten the scene's drama up to eleven; so maybe.
About the negative levels... Im not sure if belkar got that ludicrous ammount of negative levels , but I pointed out on a previous post (not sure which one) that if belkar reverted to a level before he got, say , a constitution enhancement of +1 (migh have had one at 12 or 16) and he's at 1 CON... well, unless Restoration could be cast on his corpse or somehow his constitution could be fixed or the drain resets after death, a permanent CON stat of 0 means he'd be deader than dead. Although this seems quite a loophole to me, it's still a possibility.

Which is why IF Belkar is at level 1 AND has a con of 1 (both permanent drain without restoration) at the time of death, he can't be revived.

The flowchart goes like this for any raise spell except True Resurrection..

Step 1. Is the person being raised higher than level 1? If yes, he is raised at a level 1 lower than his level at the time of death (so if you're level 2, you go down to level 1, if you're at level 16 you go down to level 15). If the person being raised is at level 1, permanent level drain included, go to step 2.

Step 2. Does the person being raised have a Con score greater than or equal to 3? If yes, raise him and subtract his con score by 2, to a minimum of 1. If the person has a con score of 2 or 1, ability score drain included, go to step 3.

Step 3. If the person being raised is at level 1 AND has a Con score of 1 or 2 (which will put him at a con of -1 or 0 upon raising), then he cannot be raised.

The one exception to this is a True Resurrection spell, which raises a person without level or con loss. However, it's a 9th level spell and so can only be cast by a cleric level 17 or higher. The only cleric we know of who's at that high a level is Redcloak, and something tells me he's not going to True Resurrect Belkar, if this scenario takes place.

Kish
2013-04-21, 04:24 PM
So, in your theory, does draining Constitution to 0 render someone totally unresurrectable, beyond even the reach of a True Resurrection?

And if not, why not?

CoffeeIncluded
2013-04-21, 04:30 PM
So, in your theory, does draining Constitution to 0 render someone totally unresurrectable, beyond even the reach of a True Resurrection?

And if not, why not?

No, and technically you'd be okay with a regular Resurrection as well, since if you're drained to 0, you become an undead creature (wight by default, I think?) and Resurrection can raise undead creatures that are destroyed and bring them back to life. It's all in the rules.

The problem is that Belkar's not drained to 0, and they don't have access to True Resurrection.

Kish
2013-04-21, 04:37 PM
...But that doesn't make any sense. How can someone with Constitution 0 be resurrected? You can't be alive with Constitution 0.

(Note, should any third parties read this, I don't think Resurrection, much less True Resurrection, should be stymied by Constitution drain to any extent. I'm just trying to point out the inconsistency here. If you presume Resurrection doesn't cure Constitution drain then there is no logical way it could resurrect someone whose Constitution is drained to 0. If you presume it does then there is no logical way to argue that it should be ineffective against someone whose Constitution is currently drained to 1. Pick one.)

Raineh Daze
2013-04-21, 04:41 PM
Upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health, with no loss of prepared spells. However, the subject loses one level, or 2 points of Constitution if the subject was 1st level. (If this reduction would bring its Con to 0 or lower, it can’t be resurrected). This level loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means.

It says right in the description that if you would have Con 0 or lower, resurrection isn't possible.

I guess it works on vampires and stuff because it restores them to their pre-undead state? Or it only works if the last con drain (the killing blow) was a drain of 3 or 4 rather than one or two, since you never had 1 or 2. You went from 3 or 4 to dead. :smallconfused:

Of course, all this assumes that the damage is, for some reason, permanent. Otherwise, the 'full hit points, vigor, and health' thing would restore it.

Auldrin
2013-04-21, 05:34 PM
A raised creature has a number of hit
points equal to its current Hit Dice. Any
ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1.

From the PHB description of Raise Dead. If he has levels to lose, he loses his level and automatically gets back 1 constitution. I'm aware that the original theory of the thread is 'What if he has neither?' but now you all seem to have forgotten that and be under the impression that if a level 20 died with 0 constitution, they'd be dead permanently.

CoffeeIncluded
2013-04-21, 05:39 PM
A raised creature has a number of hit
points equal to its current Hit Dice. Any
ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1.

From the PHB description of Raise Dead. If he has levels to lose, he loses his level and automatically gets back 1 constitution. I'm aware that the original theory of the thread is 'What if he has neither?' but now you all seem to have forgotten that and be under the impression that if a level 20 died with 0 constitution, they'd be dead permanently.

Bingo. The problem comes when you have neither, which as I've said be fore, may be a boat that Belkar's in right now.

Kish
2013-04-21, 05:52 PM
So the closest thing to a response I'm getting is, "Because the rules just say so, whether it makes any sense or not."

Auldrin
2013-04-21, 05:55 PM
So the closest thing to a response I'm getting is, "Because the rules just say so, whether it makes any sense or not."

No. The rules don't say 'you just can' be alive with 0 constitution. They say you get 1 constitution back, as part of the spell. In the same way, if someone extracted all of your blood and you were raised, you couldn't say 'but how can I alive without blood?'

Raise spells fix your body and put your soul back in it, otherwise you would die immediately upon getting back into it.

Raineh Daze
2013-04-21, 06:01 PM
So the closest thing to a response I'm getting is, "Because the rules just say so, whether it makes any sense or not."

What? :smallannoyed:

If you have 1 HD and if you have 0, 1, or 2 CON, then you can't be brought back by Resurrection and Raise Dead. Simple as that.

If you have 0 CON and 2 HD, you get a point back because it repairs damaged scores.

If you use True Resurrection, there's no penalty, you come back ready to fight, with no lasting damage. Said lack of a penalty means that level drain and ability drain have no impact; it's fully restored. 9th level, though.

Should you use Resurrection on case #2, it functions the same as True Resurrection, stopping -1 HD from your actual total. Raise Dead just gives you HP = HP and ability scores of 1.

Kish
2013-04-21, 06:14 PM
No. The rules don't say 'you just can' be alive with 0 constitution. They say you get 1 constitution back, as part of the spell. In the same way, if someone extracted all of your blood and you were raised, you couldn't say 'but how can I alive without blood?'

Raise spells fix your body and put your soul back in it, otherwise you would die immediately upon getting back into it.
Fine, since CoffeeIncluded isn't responding to me, I'll try rephrasing once more for you.

Can Resurrection cure Constitution drain or not?

If it can then it can resurrect someone with a Constitution of 1, if it can't then it can't resurrect someone with a Constitution of 0. In your other hypothetical, I wouldn't say "But how can I be alive without blood?" but I would sure ask someone who was suggesting that the presence of one pint of blood in the corpse renders resurrection impossible to justify how someone with no blood at all can be resurrected but someone with one pint can't.

Raineh Daze
2013-04-21, 06:21 PM
Looking at the spell in full, it comes down to whether you think Resurrection replicates Restoration. The order goes 'heal -> penalise'. Seems the only way to actually get stuck dead is to constantly undergo death and resurrection, successively cutting your scores down. But that depends on how you read the 'restored to full hit points, vigor, and health' part. :smallconfused:

Raise Dead is completely useless for this.

CoffeeIncluded
2013-04-21, 08:44 PM
Fine, since CoffeeIncluded isn't responding to me, I'll try rephrasing once more for you.

Can Resurrection cure Constitution drain or not?

If it can then it can resurrect someone with a Constitution of 1, if it can't then it can't resurrect someone with a Constitution of 0. In your other hypothetical, I wouldn't say "But how can I be alive without blood?" but I would sure ask someone who was suggesting that the presence of one pint of blood in the corpse renders resurrection impossible to justify how someone with no blood at all can be resurrected but someone with one pint can't.

You know, I do have a lot of work to do. I'm coming up on finals.

And you can die from con damage too, say with poison, and then be raised without any problem, even at first level, assuming your default con score is greater than 3. That's because with con damage, the denominator stays the same. So if you have 14 con and are poisoned by black lotus extract and die, your con score is at 0/14 (like if your HP is at -10/30) and you die. When you're raised, your con score is at 1/14, and then can recover through rest, or by natural methods.

Right now, unless Belkar's fixed, his con score isn't at 1/14 or whatever he started with, but 1/1. Drain changes the denominator. So does being raised, if you're at first level and can't pay the Raise Tax with a level. So if Belkar was energy drained to death but not con drained, then he'd die at level 1 with a con score of 14 (or in this case, 14/14). If he were raised, since he's at level 1, he'd have a con score lowered to 12/12. If he were at level 1, killed by poison, and raised, he'd come back with a con score of 1/12.

If Belkar, right now at level 1 and a con score of 1 (Con "health" at 1/1) were to die, he couldn't pay the Raise Tax with levels since then he'd be level 0. And if he were to pay it in con, he'd have a con of -1/-1, and and even if his ability numerator would be raised to 1, his denominator would still be -1, and you can't have a con "health total" of 1/-1.

factotum
2013-04-22, 02:30 AM
My reading of it, for what it's worth: if Belkar died and was raised from the dead prior to the 24-hour Fort save limit on his negative levels, he would come back at full strength because the negative levels, at that point, are just a temporary status effect which get wiped by the rez. If he fails his Fort save, then dies, he would get Resurrected at whatever level he happened to be after losing all those levels.

I imagine the CON drain would be the same--if it became a *permanent* drain then it would have to be taken into account during the rez, but if it hasn't been "locked in" by failing the save, it just disappears.

Kish
2013-04-22, 08:00 AM
[snip]

That...doesn't answer anything I said at all.

Vampire drains someone to 0 Constitution. It is constitution drain, not damage. In fact, it's the exact same constitution drain Belkar has experienced. Denominator is 0, number is 0/0.

Before that person rises as an undead creature or after that person has risen as an undead creature and been destroyed, that person, in your, CoffeeIncluded's, theory, cannot be Resurrected, yes or no?

You did actually answer this question earlier. So, assuming your answer hasn't changed and you're still asserting that someone at level 1 drained to 1 Constitution cannot be resurrected (because they'd go down to 0 Constitution) but someone drained to 0 Constitution can be resurrected (and presumably gets some number of Constitution back), why? Do you have any reason other than "the rules say so"?


I imagine the CON drain would be the same--if it became a *permanent* drain then it would have to be taken into account during the rez, but if it hasn't been "locked in" by failing the save, it just disappears.
There's no save for stat drain, and, correspondingly, no "locking in" state change the way there is for negative levels. Belkar has a Constitution of 1 now, and he will for the rest of his life or until he receives a Restoration spell, whichever comes first. Conversely, if he received a Restoration spell in ninety years, presuming he's still alive to receive it then, he'd suddenly get all his Constitution back.

quasit
2013-04-22, 11:38 AM
Strange issue there... a character subject to CON ability drain get the stat permanently reduced until a restoration spell is cast on him. If said character's CON stat reachs zero because of all the con drain sustained some ugly effect triggers: lets say, a victim of a Vampire, Shadow of the void or bone ooze is killed and it's utterly assimilated (so, hope for true resurrection) on the later or raises as undead on the two former cases. Then, resurrection states that after slaying the undead pc he can be resurrected. As any undead has a non score for con, and had a zero value at the moment of his death it should be brought back with his original con value (otherwise there'd be no point in resurrecting an undead) so the rulement covers this, althougth looks very fuzzy.

The problem I see there is that nothing points clearly what happens to a character who have had severe ability drain and then is victim to energy drain that also doesn't kill him, but either turns the pc into a one hit wonder( level one with 1-2 con value, totally squishy and unable to be resurrected) or to a previous point in wich he had still less constitution score (this, assuming he spent a ability advance at lvls 4-8-12-16 on raising his con stat) thus killing him outright and leaving a corpse that won't raise as an undead (wasn't slain by neither energy nor con drain but by a side effect of those instead) with 0 value due to ability drain (rez reads that ability damage is fixed, not ability drain) and losing an stat advance. Thus the pc is out of the rules as written dead->undead->dead again->resurrected and back in the game case, too. :smallconfused:

All of this looks very elaborated to me, so I suspect that, in fact, designers migh have overlooked this when they wrote the rulebook.
As this (great) webcomic uses d&d rules but don't slavishly adhere(as Kish said earlier)to them, and in this case I found the rulement very unclear about it; i'd rather leave the issue as a " DM's discretion ", and call it a day. :smallsigh:

Toofey
2013-04-22, 11:43 AM
Why? Belkar is evil.

Because Roy is good. and that's the person who's decisions we're discussing, someone being evil shouldn't mean that good people are free to treat them in a way that would be considered evil if applied to a good character, because then their actions would cease to be good.


that was fun