How do you handle a nonablity in a point buy?

[Zanos]

I've heard that some people treat it has having no points spent in it, some people treat it has having a 10(average), and therefore 2 points in it, before racial adjustments or whatever.

Curious how various DM's handle it.

[Keneth]

Depends on how that ability is acquired. If we're talking about an undead character, the character undoubtedly had some points invested into Constitution before he died.

Since I play Pathfinder where point buy starts at 10, I don't impose any penalties, but in 3.5, I probably would subtract those 2 points (at least).

[Boci]

Depends on how that ability is acquired. If we're talking about an undead character, the character undoubtedly had some points invested into Constitution before he died.

Since I play Pathfinder where point buy starts at 10, I don't impose any penalties, but in 3.5, I probably would subtract those 2 points (at least).

I would make players pay for something they don't get the benefit of, at least not in this case. Yes its a cute trick to play an elf and technically start with a con of 6 but receive none of the penalties for doing so, but that all it is, a trick. Its hardly a no brainer and playing an undead in a living party isn't exactly smooth flowing. I'd let them have that small joy.

Also you wouldn't penalize someone's pointbuy in PF, but you would consider making someone on 3.5 pay more than 2? That makes no sense.

[Keneth]

Also you wouldn't penalize someone's pointbuy in PF, but you would consider making someone on 3.5 pay more than 2? That makes no sense.

I said "at least" because 3.5 has far more gimmicky options than Pathfinder, but that's besides the point. I stated that I don't penalize players in Pathfinder, not that I wouldn't. If I saw a reason for there to be a penalty, I would just as likely apply one as I would in 3.5.

[Boci]

I said "at least" because 3.5 has far more gimmicky options than Pathfinder, but that's besides the point.

Again, I wouldn't worry about it too much. No optimizer is going to become undead just for a couple of extra points of PB, as it also has a long list of other consequences that dwarf the impact of the extra points. And they are losing out on the chance to gain more hitpoints by boosting their constitution, so I don't see why its a problem for them to have no points in it. I'm sure whilst alive they did have more points in con, but that's mechanically irrelevant.


I stated that I don't penalize players in Pathfinder, not that I wouldn't.

Without context those two words (and English language in general) are too fluid for me to reliable make a meaningful difference between those two statements (which I didn't have in the original post).

[Keneth]

Again, I wouldn't worry about it too much. No optimizer is going to become undead just for a couple of extra points of PB, as it also has a long list of other consequences that dwarf the impact of the extra points.

Maybe so, but getting extra ability points on top of all the reasons why one would want to become an undead creature (or otherwise lose an ability score) is not a trivial matter, and instead of speculating on all the different types of situations, I decided to simply expand on the hypothetical range of penalties I would impose if needed.


Without context those two words (and English language in general) are too fluid for me to reliable make a meaningful difference between those two statements (which I didn't have in the original post).

I did provide context by saying Pathfinder is the system I personally use, but I guess the difference in the two statements was too subtle.

[Boci]

Maybe so, but getting extra ability points on top of all the reasons why one would want to become an undead creature (or otherwise lose an ability score) is not a trivial matter, and instead of speculating on all the different types of situations, I decided to simply expand on the hypothetical range of penalties I would impose if needed.

Not my style as a DM. Such a small difference is not going to overpower the PC, so I would default to not nerfing them when its not clearly in the rules. It also doesn't make much sense. If I mention in my backstory that I was once strong (14 strength) but am now weak (8 strength) after being nearly killed by vile magic, would you charge me for that strength? Its doing just as much for me as the point in con are doing the undead? And what if I start the game with 6 con and then become undead?


I did provide context by saying Pathfinder is the system I personally use, but I guess the difference in the two statements was too subtle.

Not subtle so much as meaningless. "I don't drink" and "I won't drink" can mean different things, but they can also mean the same. Don't always let the meaning of a phrase be carried by the difference between "don't" and "won't".

[Keneth]

Not my style as a DM.

Well, that's your business then, isn't it? To you the points may not seem like much, to me they're the difference between heaven and earth. :smallamused:


Not subtle so much as meaningless. "I don't drink" and "I won't drink" can mean different things, but they can also mean the same. Don't always let the meaning of a phrase be carried by the difference between "don't" and "won't".

"Will not" and "would not" are in no way equivalent, you're just changing what I said completely now.

The actually equivalent example would be:

"We only have beer at my gaming sessions, so I don't mind how much people drink, but if we had spirits, I would probably make sure the players only do a couple shots (or less)."

The fact that I would explicitly mind how many shots people drink in no way implies I wouldn't intervene if one the players was guzzling down his second six-pack. The only implication there is that beer consumption isn't as much of an issue, and that we only have beer anyway.

[Boci]

To you the points may not seem like much, to me they're the difference between heaven and earth. :smallamused:

Now you are just making a mountain out of a mole hill. Unless you can show me how the extra points are going to make such a massive difference. A character, and then an undead version with all points in con redistributed, to show how it can mean the difference between heaven and earth.


"Will not" and "would not" are in no way equivalent, you're just changing what I said completely now.

The actually equivalent example would be:

"We only have beer at my gaming sessions, so I don't mind how much people drink, but if we had spirits, I would probably make sure the players only do a couple shots (or less)."

The fact that I would explicitly mind how many shots people drink in no way implies I wouldn't intervene if one the players was guzzling down his second six-pack. The only implication there is that beer consumption isn't as much of an issue, and that we only have beer anyway.

This really isn't worth it. I misunderstood you, maybe it was my fault, maybe you could have been clearer. I really don't see the merit in debating it any further.

[Equinox]

If you buy off 5 abilities instead of 6, you only get 5/6 of the normal points, that's how I'd do it. For example, at 32 point buy, with CON being a nonability, I'd give the player 32*5/6 ~= 27 points. Which by the way is quite enough for 5 abilities (17/14/14/10/8, for example)

[Boci]

If you buy off 5 abilities instead of 6, you only get 5/6 of the normal points, that's how I'd do it. For example, at 32 point buy, with CON being a nonability, I'd give the player 32*5/6 ~= 27 points. Which by the way is quite enough for 5 abilities (17/14/14/10/8, for example)

I would consider far too harsh, as most hp in 3.5 comes from a con score. I would already consider being undead not worth it on balance (barring a specific trick that necessitates it), and that's factoring in the increased stats. And again, this would create an artificial divide between characters who start undead, and characters who become undead in game.

[Equinox]

Boci,

I'm not sure why it creates a divide between characters who start undead, and characters who become undead in game. Characters who start living, usually put a few points into CON. Very few characters I've seen want to start with CON below 12. Usually, 12-14 is the standard, which means spending 4-6 point-buy points on CON. When later a living character becomes undead, those 4-6 points are lost and never refunded. Well, I'm imposing a similar 'tax', so to speak, on characters who start undead, and IMHO this actually removes the divide.

Unless you mean a player is shrewd enough to create a living character with low CON, knowing in advance he's gonna become undead soon ... but none of the players I hang around are that savvy.

[Boci]

Unless you mean a player is shrewd enough to create a living character with low CON, knowing in advance he's gonna become undead soon ... but none of the players I hang around are that savvy.

That is what I meant. The assumption would be it isn't metagaming, because part of the reason the character wants to be undead is to augment their body with the essence of undeath.

[Equinox]

I see. Well, if that was to ever happen, I'd talk to the player and explain that there are no "make you undead at will" parlors, and his planned transformation to undead may take a while - it has to happen naturally as part of the story - and meanwhile he's penalizing himself by walking around with a low CON, and possibly not surviving till the stage where he can make the change. Although I'm not saying it to the players in these terms, the damage my monsters do is balanced toward characters who made a 'normal' investment of 12-14 into CON. If you want to put 8 in CON, it's a risk.

[Boci]

I see. Well, if that was to ever happen, I'd talk to the player and explain that there are no "make you undead at will" parlors, and his planned transformation to undead may take a while - it has to happen naturally as part of the story

Why? This isn't a balance issue, the extra stat point don't outway the draw backs and complications of being undead. The ritual to turn you into a necropolitant costs 3k. Your technically in your right as a DM to say its incredably rare, but generally something that costs 3k isn't going to be that rare, and you have already applied a hefty house ruled nerf to the player by threatening to reduce their point buy if they want to start the game off weaker (by being undead). This just seems unnecessary and heavy handed.

And depending on the starting level, the player could be one level away from becoming undead, if they take a prestige class that turns them into one as a cap.

[Rubik]

Low Con isn't necessarily bad, especially if one is planning a truly SAD character build. +Int to everything, including hit points and Fort saves, is fairly easy (just take factotum), so starting off with an elderly LA-buyoff phrenic gray elf factotum//(wizard/psion/artificer/whatever) with Faerie Mysteries Initiate and so on would never even have to touch his Con score.

[Boci]

Low Con isn't necessarily bad, especially if one is planning a truly SAD character build. +Int to everything, including hit points and Fort saves, is fairly easy (just take factotum), so starting off with an elderly LA-buyoff phrenic gray elf factotum//(wizard/psion/artificer/whatever) with Faerie Mysteries Initiate and so on would never even have to touch his Con score.

Yes, but that's a moderately high level of optimization, but if that's the level your group plays at then its all that matters.

[Equinox]

Why? This isn't a balance issue, the extra stat point don't outway the draw backs and complications of being undead. The ritual to turn you into a necropolitant costs 3k. Your technically in your right as a DM to say its incredably rare, but generally something that costs 3k isn't going to be that rare, and you have already applied a hefty house ruled nerf to the player by threatening to reduce their point buy if they want to start the game off weaker (by being undead). This just seems unnecessary and heavy handed.

And depending on the starting level, the player could be one level away from becoming undead, if they take a prestige class that turns them into one as a cap.It costs 3k, and is considered evil and is shunned by most sentient races. There are a lot less Necropolitans in my world then there are, I dunno, +2 Cloaks of Resistance. It's something that it doesn't fit the world to have many of, so I believe I'm within my rights to restrict it to something rare.

And I never start a campaign at such a high level that you're only 1 away from the capstone of a prestige class that will make you undead.

Anyway, it's all very dependent on the kind of players you have and the kind of campaign you run, so to each his own, I guess

[Boci]

It costs 3k, and is considered evil and is shunned by most sentient races. There are a lot less Necropolitans in my world then there are, I dunno, +2 Cloaks of Resistance. It's something that it doesn't fit the world to have many of, so I believe I'm within my rights to restrict it to something rare.

You are, but this is coming after a houseruled nerf with little to no president in the rules. So you are house ruling against them, and then interpreting the rules against them. Those two combined make it seem heavy handed.


Anyway, it's all very dependent on the kind of players you have and the kind of campaign you run, so to each his own, I guess

I'm not trying to tell you how to run your game, but this issue of pointbuy for an undead character is purely mechanical, there is nothing fluffy about it. And mechanically I see no reason to nerf that options, as its numerous drawbacks already make it a hard sell on a purely mechanical level. If you do not want undead PCs, that is entirely different, but then you should just say that, rather than coming up with an unnecessary house nerf for them.

[Equinox]

I don't think it's a houseruled nerf. There are no rules at all about handling point buy for 5 abilities instead of 6. At all. Not even inferred. There is nothing to houserule.

The interpretation of "you get 5/6 of the normal ability points" is by no means less valid than "you are assumed to have average CON". In fact, I take issue with you calling it "a houseruled nerf" (with another adjective which I will not dignify by repeating), and unless you withdraw that statement, will not debate the topic with you anymore.

[Boci]

I don't think it's a houseruled nerf. There are no rules at all about handling point buy for 5 abilities instead of 6. At all. Not even inferred. There is nothing to houserule.

The interpretation of "you get 5/6 of the normal ability points" is by no means less valid than "you are assumed to have average CON". In fact, I take issue with you calling it "a houseruled nerf" (with another adjective which I will not dignify by repeating), and unless you withdraw that statement, will not debate the topic with you anymore.

It does work my way by the rules. The rules are for point by: you divide the allocated amount between your 6 stats. If your con is -, then you cannot put anything into it, so its always going to be 0. Assuming this should reduce the total pointbuy is a houserule. Its a logical one, but its still a houserule. I'm under no delusions that my method can easily be called an exploit, but even with this exploit, undead characters probably emerge slightly worse off, so I don't see why this exploit should be "fixed". I'm sorry if this offends you, but I see no reason to call it anything other than a houserule.

[Yora]

Since a nonability has the same +0 modifier as a 10, I'd probably count it as costing the same amount of points from the total as a 10 would. Because that's how much the character gains from the ability score.

[Fax Celestis]

And they are losing out on the chance to gain more hitpoints by boosting their constitution

No they aren't. Undead get bonus HP based on CHA in PF, and constructs gain bonus HP based on their size category.

[Boci]

Since a nonability has the same +0 modifier as a 10, I'd probably count it as costing the same amount of points from the total as a 10 would. Because that's how much the character gains from the ability score.

I disagree with this assessment. A characters with a con of 10 can still benefit from con boosting items and spells.


No they aren't. Undead get bonus HP based on CHA in PF, and constructs gain bonus HP based on their size category.

I've been talking about 3.5.

[Fax Celestis]

I've been talking about 3.5.

...in which constructs still get bonus HP based on size.

[Boci]

...in which constructs still get bonus HP based on size.

1. A lot less than a con modifier would offer
2. How many ways are there to play a con - construct?

[dascarletm]

This is why I always dump con on my wizards. Besides the fact that role-playing a fragile sickly wizard is extra fun, and you get more of a fun challenge making sure that nothing ever hits you, I had perfect evidence to prove that I would have dumped con on my epic campaign character (who was a demi-lich aspiring lich).

[Fax Celestis]

1. A lot less than a con modifier would offer
Not...really.

{table=head]Construct Size | Bonus Hit Points
Fine | —
Diminutive | —
Tiny | —
Small | 10
Medium | 20
Large | 30
Huge | 40
Gargantuan | 60
Colossal | 80[/table]

2. How many ways are there to play a con - construct?
Well, there's inevitables in core. Helmed Horror is 8 HD, +3 LA. Dustform makes you a construct for just +2 LA. A dustform human is LA +2 and gets +20 HP.

[Boci]

Not...really.

{table=head]Construct Size | Bonus Hit Points
Fine | —
Diminutive | —
Tiny | —
Small | 10
Medium | 20
Large | 30
Huge | 40
Gargantuan | 60
Colossal | 80[/table]

At low levels sure, but that's is going to be outstripped by level 10 at the latest, probably earlier, since you are medium most likely, and so have 20 bonus hitpoints.


Well, there's inevitables in core. Helmed Horror is 8 HD, +3 LA. Dustform makes you a construct for just +2 LA. A dustform human is LA +2 and gets +20 HP.

How many times do you hear about playing these? Basically what I'm getting at if I was focusing on undead because those are the one that get played. Outside of warforge I rarely hear about someone playing a construct, and even if they did, all those have LA so I don't feel that only needing to distribute pointbuy between 5 stats is a significant boost.

[Curmudgeon]

OK, this all boils down to:

There aren't any official rules altering point buy when you have (or soon will have) fewer than 6 ability scores.
Do you think having a nonability merits a house rule to reduce the points available?

My answer: No, I don't think so. Compared to other aspects of the game that need work (linear distance penalties for Spot and Listen, for instance) this is just at the level of noise.

The far more interesting question is: How do you (if at all) alter your game world to take into account a character with a nonability? I'm certainly not going to have Clerics stop using turn undead just because there's a Necropolitan character in the party. If the Undead character ends up fleeing from a number of fights, only getting XP for those encounters where they participated seems like the expected price to pay for going the min-max route with Necropolitan: either it'll work well by having a bunch of Undead immunities (max) or it'll work poorly from the detriments of being Undead (min).

[thethird]

Unless you mean a player is shrewd enough to create a living character with low CON, knowing in advance he's gonna become undead soon ... but none of the players I hang around are that savvy.

I've done that, and applied enough Bloodtouched rites to almost kill me before becoming undead...

[molten_dragon]

I've heard that some people treat it has having no points spent in it, some people treat it has having a 10(average), and therefore 2 points in it, before racial adjustments or whatever.

Curious how various DM's handle it.

I'd just let them put no points into the non-ability. Assuming it's CON because they're going to become undead, it's likely that they wouldn't have wasted points in CON even if they started from level 1.

[Rubik]

I'd just let them put no points into the non-ability. Assuming it's CON because they're going to become undead, it's likely that they wouldn't have wasted points in CON even if they started from level 1.Funny enough, undeadness tends to happen only when you die, so having a low Con even facilitates this process.

[Ravens_cry]

Funny enough, undeadness tends to happen only when you die, so having a low Con even facilitates this process.
While it stinks a little of metagaming, I can imagine someone sickly throughout their life might embrace undeath more eagerly. "Life? Bah. I don't miss it. Life for me was a weak heart, chesty lungs and a perpetual runny nose that left me breathless and nasally. Life? Don't ask me about life."

[Mnemnosyne]

While it stinks a little of metagaming, I can imagine someone sickly throughout their life might embrace undeath more eagerly. "Life? Bah. I don't miss it. Life for me was a weak heart, chesty lungs and a perpetual runny nose that left me breathless and nasally. Life? Don't ask me about life."
Yep, this. It's like people who insist on making you take flaws that are 'significant' to your character. It makes no sense. A character that is weak and unhealthy and yet still wants to go adventuring might see undeath as an ideal option to 'live' a better life with less pain, suffering, etc. Someone who was born with a congenital disease, or has had a long, chronic illness since youth might seek to become undead specifically to escape such illness.

[Ravens_cry]

Yep, this. It's like people who insist on making you take flaws that are 'significant' to your character. It makes no sense. A character that is weak and unhealthy and yet still wants to go adventuring might see undeath as an ideal option to 'live' a better life with less pain, suffering, etc. Someone who was born with a congenital disease, or has had a long, chronic illness since youth might seek to become undead specifically to escape such illness.
I would consider this still 'significant'. because it likely changes who your character is as a person. Someone like this I see as very goal driven. They are willing to embrace undeath, and all the changes and, especially, the social stigma it implies in most worlds, to achieve their goal. That takes commitment. They are probably quite willing to go through a lot, to sacrifice a lot, for other goals as well. This can lay the ground for some intense dramatic moments of temptation.

[CRtwenty]

An extra 2, or even an extra 8 points at character creation isn't going to be terribly gamebreaking. But if you want, just have them act like they had their racial base as a stat for calculations.

Or maybe give the other Players the same number of points as bonus points. Either way works.

[OldTrees1]

I expect characters with a non ability to have had a weak score in that ability prior.

It takes extremely rare circumstances for a hardy 16 Con Wizard to become a lich. On the other hand it makes a lot of sense for a frail 6 Con Wizard to seek undead.

[Ravens_cry]

I expect characters with a non ability to have had a weak score in that ability prior.

It takes extremely rare circumstances for a hardy 16 Con Wizard to become a lich. On the other hand it makes a lot of sense for a frail 6 Con Wizard to seek undead.
Even a 16 Con Wizard has to come to grips with the fact that, eventually, they will die. Not every one will become a Lich, but neither will all the 6 Con wizards.
I think 6 Cons would go for Necropolitan more because it's easier to attain the mastery required.

[Xuldarinar]

Even a 16 Con Wizard has to come to grips with the fact that, eventually, they will die. Not every one will become a Lich, but neither will all the 6 Con wizards.
I think 6 Cons would go for Necropolitan more because it's easier to attain the mastery required.

I'd actually have to say that technically it is more difficult to become a Necropolitan, though I agree the mastery is far less. Where as lichdom requires CL 11th+ and Craft Wonderous Item, to become a necropolitan:

0: Be a humanoid or monstrous humanoid with atleast be 2nd level with 1,000 additional experience points.
1: Find the city of Nocturnus. (May or may not exist, its not well known, and so on.)
2: Petition for consideration for the ritual. (3,000 gp and a written plea. Be very convincing [Bluff or Diplomacy, Possibly Craft (Calligraphy)])
3: They actually approve you (Whom ever is approving it has to like what you wrote in your plea, and preferably have at least someone in a place of authority actually like you.)
4: Undergo the ritual.

Now, given the ritual requires you be nailed to a wooden pole with cursed nails that provide a sensation of molten metal running up one's arms, listen to a handful of zombies chant non-stop along with that of the individual actually conduct the ritual, for the next 24 hours, I highly doubt anyone is going to be pleased by the process and it might even discourage some individuals.

If the ritual is interrupted, you die.

If you don't have enough experience to spare (1 level + 1,000xp), you are reduced to dust and cannot be raised or revived by -ANY- means.

Given the DM can choose to hand it to you, but otherwise I contend it is more difficult overall, you just don't need the magic ability (which any class that provides any form of spellcasting can provide).

Edit: And to contribute to the thread as a whole.

Since you handle ability scores first, before selecting race/class/feats/skills/ect, even if a character is going to have a non-ability by the end of creation, this has no impact on the point buy level. a DM can make rules on it, but otherwise it is irrelevant.

[OldTrees1]

Even a 16 Con Wizard has to come to grips with the fact that, eventually, they will die. Not every one will become a Lich, but neither will all the 6 Con wizards.
I think 6 Cons would go for Necropolitan more because it's easier to attain the mastery required.

Sure a 16 Con Wizard can become a lich. However the frailer the wizard, the more likely they are to fear death to the point of undeath. Thus I would assume a frail wizard would become undead but not leap to the same conclusion about a hardy wizard.
Not all of either would become undead but I expect a statistically significant difference.

As such I have no problems with a PC using minimum point buy for stats that will eventually become non abilities. (Although undead that used to have a con of 2 when they were alive, might just have a hostile forced resurrection plot)

I was using lich as a stand in for voluntarily assumed undeath.

[ArcturusV]

Hmm. I wouldn't impact point buy at all. Reasonings:

1) Lacking a Con Score isn't a benefit, it's really a penalty.

2) Being undead itself comes with a huge host of drawbacks, possibly even more depending on your particular flavor of undead (Like the buttload of Vampire Weaknesses, usually the more popular one I see players want to be at the table. Ghoul? nope, Vamp.)

3) I'm the sort of asshat that, if the campaign ran long enough, that guy might come back to life. After all, they play a Vampire, or a Ghoul, or Necropolitan, etc, and get killed? They can still be Rezzed. As normal humans/elves/dwarves/whatever. At which point that "I didn't put any points into it" is a real factor that can really bite them in the ass.

And that does happen by the way. You go slogging through 7 levels with your Vampire Cleric of doom, like the character, and he gets dusted? Yeah, when someone bothers to offer a Rez you jump on it. Least I've seen players jump on it. Then they remember they don't come back as a Vampire... but as an Elf Cleric who suddenly has a 6 Con and an problem of d8 HP.

[The Insanity]

If a player gained a nonability during the game in one of his scores I would let him re-apply the points somewhere else.

[Zanos]

I would consider this still 'significant'. because it likely changes who your character is as a person. Someone like this I see as very goal driven. They are willing to embrace undeath, and all the changes and, especially, the social stigma it implies in most worlds, to achieve their goal. That takes commitment. They are probably quite willing to go through a lot, to sacrifice a lot, for other goals as well. This can lay the ground for some intense dramatic moments of temptation.
I'm actually rolling up a Wizard who will probably already be a lich by the time he joins the campaign. Considering how old he is before he became a lich, it would make sense for him to be rather frail, even though my group doesn't play with stat adjustments for age. We've been playing since level 1, but my current character is approaching the end of his personal story, and is kind of a death seeker. My new character is significantly more attached to being, if not alive, at least not dead. Lot of unfinished business.

That's what brought this up, anyway. I decided to expand it to any non-ability because I think it's possible to get non-abilities to str and dex as a PC.


Hmm. I wouldn't impact point buy at all. Reasonings:

1) Lacking a Con Score isn't a benefit, it's really a penalty.

2) Being undead itself comes with a huge host of drawbacks, possibly even more depending on your particular flavor of undead (Like the buttload of Vampire Weaknesses, usually the more popular one I see players want to be at the table. Ghoul? nope, Vamp.)

3) I'm the sort of asshat that, if the campaign ran long enough, that guy might come back to life. After all, they play a Vampire, or a Ghoul, or Necropolitan, etc, and get killed? They can still be Rezzed. As normal humans/elves/dwarves/whatever. At which point that "I didn't put any points into it" is a real factor that can really bite them in the ass.

And that does happen by the way. You go slogging through 7 levels with your Vampire Cleric of doom, like the character, and he gets dusted? Yeah, when someone bothers to offer a Rez you jump on it. Least I've seen players jump on it. Then they remember they don't come back as a Vampire... but as an Elf Cleric who suddenly has a 6 Con and an problem of d8 HP.
1) Lacking a con score gives you all the qualities of a constitution non-ability:

A creature with no Constitution has no body or no metabolism. It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. The creature is also immune to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain, and automatically fails Constitution checks. A creature with no Constitution cannot tire and thus can run indefinitely without tiring (unless the creature’s description says it cannot run).
Usually this also accompanies the undead immunities, but is quite a bit on it's own. Your HP will almost certainly be lower, though. A d12 + 0 con wizard has 6.5 hp per level, where a 14 con +6 item wizard has 7.5 hp per level, and can continue to increase their constitution.

2)The WotC vampire template sucks something fierce. I would do everything I could to encourage a player to seek alternatives. Being turned sucks, but a lot of PC templates give at least a decent amount of turn resistance. Even being successfully turned means you flee with the fastest method available to you, which means you probably won't be destroyed in the encounter, at any rate. Stills takes you out of the fight with no save, which just seems rude.

3)Revive Undead exists, and if your pals are aware of your "condition", there are a significant number of gods whose clerics would have no issue restoring an undead. The material component also costs 500 gp, vs the 5000 for raise dead or 10000 for resurrection. It does limit you a bit, but there are ways of being restored without losing your template.


"You aren't getting anything from it, so you didn't spend any points in it" seems pretty reasonable. Most people seem to be sticking on the pretty generous side of deducting no or 2 points(to get a 10) from someones point buy.

[LordBlades]

OK, this all boils down to:

The far more interesting question is: How do you (if at all) alter your game world to take into account a character with a nonability? I'm certainly not going to have Clerics stop using turn undead just because there's a Necropolitan character in the party. If the Undead character ends up fleeing from a number of fights, only getting XP for those encounters where they participated seems like the expected price to pay for going the min-max route with Necropolitan: either it'll work well by having a bunch of Undead immunities (max) or it'll work poorly from the detriments of being Undead (min).

Would you similarly penalize a living character that doesn't take part in the encounter due to similar circumstances (being hit with a Fear spell, paralyzed, turned to stone etc.)?

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, immune to quite a few saves. But the ones that still target Fort and will work on you? Are going to wreck your day. I mean it doesn't sound like much saying that you'll be short say, the +3 Fort Save from your Con score, or +7 or so after you're boosted up. Say a classic standard like Disintegrate. You fail that save, your undead is dead. Horribly, horribly dead. Sixth level spell, so lets call it level 10 before it starts being a concern (As tough enemies tend to be a bit ahead of the party power curve/level wise).

So your typically undead sorcerer/wizard (They almost always seem to be one in my experience. Rarely a cleric. But no one takes Undead and goes Fighter or Ranger it seems) will have... a +3 to save against it. That's it. Against a spell with a DC of likely at least 21, if not higher. Meaning it's basically an Autokill against you. Unless you sink a very large amount of your resource (Loot, Feats, Spells, etc) into defending against even just one simple option that you could reasonably expect any enemy of that level to have available (Really, what wizard DOESN'T take Disintegrate?).

Course, if you were a human, and had a Con Score that same Sorcerer character would likely have something like a 22 Con at that point (Because it's always useful, you're going to pick up Con boosters, and you have no real other priorities after Charisma and maybe Dex to focus on), for a +9 to the saving throw before accounting for items and the like. So already you're at about a 40% chance of passing your saving throw, as opposed to the 10% chance of the undead.

That's the sort of thing where I'm talking about it being a greater penalty than a boon. I've seen more characters just bent over and done wrong by having Con: -- than I've ever seen them benefit from it. Just because yeah, you'll be immune to some fort saves, but the ones you aren't are almost guaranteed to work against you and mean game over. Granted they tend to mean the same thing to a living target as well. But the living target will likely be 3-4 times more able to resist it. So it's not as certain a thing.

[Raven777]

It is worth noting that contrary to 3.5, Pathfinder undead get to use their Charisma modifier in lieu of their Constitution modifier for Hit Points and Fortitude Saving Throws while keeping all the perks of Con --. Which makes undead Charisma using classes pretty scary when their Charisma start reaching 20+ scores.

[Boci]

It is worth noting that contrary to 3.5, Pathfinder undead get to use their Charisma modifier in lieu of their Constitution modifier for Hit Points and Fortitude Saving Throws. Which makes undead Charisma using classes pretty scary when their Charisma start reaching 20+ scores.

What are the playerable undead options like in PF?

[Ravens_cry]

What are the playerable undead options like in PF?
Limited, to put it mildly. Unless your DM lets you take templates, the only 'undead' race is the sorta, but not really, undead Dhampir (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-dhampir).

[ArcturusV]

... huh... I admit I haven't dived into PF yet (Was planning to this weekend)... but that seems... pretty terrible as a whole. Almost reminds me of the old slogan about multiclassing: "All of the drawbacks, none of the benefits", sort of levels of terrible.

[Curmudgeon]

Would you similarly penalize a living character that doesn't take part in the encounter due to similar circumstances (being hit with a Fear spell, paralyzed, turned to stone etc.)?
I follow the rules. They get a share in the XP for all the monsters they help kill, challenges they help overcome, & c.; if that happens to be nothing, they get no XP. From Dungeon Master's Guide, page 37:
Only characters who take part in an encounter should gain the commensurate awards. Characters who died before the encounter took place, or did not participate for some other reason, earn nothing, even if they are raised or healed later on. If being taken out of action before they can do anything happens more than once to a character, maybe they should think about selling their spiffy weapon and buying a Cloak of Resistance to better balance their offensive and defensive capabilities.

[Ravens_cry]

... huh... I admit I haven't dived into PF yet (Was planning to this weekend)... but that seems... pretty terrible as a whole. Almost reminds me of the old slogan about multiclassing: "All of the drawbacks, none of the benefits", sort of levels of terrible.
Been able to take negative levels without a blink is nice at higher levels, but, yes, it's quite campaign and party specific. You need to find a way to do your own healing and/or play in a party with a Versatile Channeller.

[Raven777]

I follow the rules. They get a share in the XP for all the monsters they help kill, challenges they help overcome, & c.; if that happens to be nothing, they get no XP. From Dungeon Master's Guide, page 37: If being taken out of action before they can do anything happens more than once to a character, maybe they should think about selling their spiffy weapon and buying a Cloak of Resistance to better balance their offensive and defensive capabilities.

Being turned is a combat action, counted in rounds. If they get turned, it means they were part of the encounter to begin with.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, just seems other than "tank negative levels" they don't really get much that is spiffy. Minor powers or some Alternate Race Features which trade their minor powers for even less effective powers. Unless I was missing something due to system unfamiliarity.

It'd be pretty hard to have an undead character who didn't contribute to an encounter, even if he got Turned on round 1, before he got to act. If I"m running something like an undead cleric or sorcerer/wizard (As I often see), means I probably did something like cast buffs, or helped set up the encounter in some way before round 1 even happened. So I still helped. If I ran something else for a change like a Ghoul Rogue or Wight Ranger that means I probably helped track down, spot, and scouted out the encounter. Still helped.

Granted that might be a more lenient ruling of "Take part" than someone who is strictly RAW might take.

[Curmudgeon]

Being turned is a combat action, counted in rounds. If they get turned, it means they were part of the encounter to begin with.
Not necessarily. If they get turned before they act in the encounter, they did not participate. So if the party Cleric has a higher initiative and turns the attacking Undead (and, incidentally, the party Necropolitan character) first, the Undead party member runs away without having a chance to take part.

If the party spellcaster has good Spot skill and high initiative, and one-shots the entire enemy group in the surprise round, nobody else participated and the spellcaster gets all the XP. Similarly, if the party scout is ahead of the party and manages to kill off a small enemy force single-handed, they get all the XP. XP award is based on participation, not simply being nearby.

[eviljav]

The fair solution is to figure out what scores someone would have if they distributed things equally, then subtract out about that many points.

i.e.:
24 point buy is all 12s, so subtract 4, so they end up with 20 point buy.
28 point buy would get you 4 13s and 2 12s, so subtract 4 or 5 points.
32 point buy, 4 13s and 2 12s, so subtract out 5 or 6.

[TuggyNE]

Not necessarily. If they get turned before they act in the encounter, they did not participate. So if the party Cleric has a higher initiative and turns the attacking Undead (and, incidentally, the party Necropolitan character) first, the Undead party member runs away without having a chance to take part.

If the party spellcaster has good Spot skill and high initiative, and one-shots the entire enemy group in the surprise round, nobody else participated and the spellcaster gets all the XP. Similarly, if the party scout is ahead of the party and manages to kill off a small enemy force single-handed, they get all the XP. XP award is based on participation, not simply being nearby.

Fair enough; let's put it this way: if at any time a character was not flat-footed during the encounter, they gain XP for participating.

[Bhaakon]

The one time I encountered this was with an undead character in pathfinder, which essentially shifts everything usually governed by Con to Cha. The player was also taking a class that benefited greatly from a high charisma (they weren't trying to be a munchkin, it just worked out that way).

I don't lower their point buy, but I doubled the PB cost for each point of charisma (under the reasoning that increasing charisma was essentially increasing charisma and constitution).

[Equinox]

Fair enough; let's put it this way: if at any time a character was not flat-footed during the encounter, they gain XP for participating.That seems a bit harsh. If the enemy managed to remove the character from the encounter, even if the character didn't get a chance to take an action, the enemy still had to spend an action on it, possibly a spell slot too. So the very presence of the character in the encounter did contribute.

[Rubik]

(they weren't trying to be a munchkin, it just worked out that way).So, they weren't trying to cheat, but they managed to cheat anyway, just by playing smart within the rules? How does that work?

[TuggyNE]

That seems a bit harsh. If the enemy managed to remove the character from the encounter, even if the character didn't get a chance to take an action, the enemy still had to spend an action on it, possibly a spell slot too. So the very presence of the character in the encounter did contribute.

I have no strong feelings one way or another; you could give them half XP in that case, give them full XP no matter what, or whatever.

Still, though, if they were flat-footed the whole time, it's hard to argue they learned as much as normal. Which is theoretically what XP measures. (Very, very, very theoretically.)

[Another_Poet]

I'm with Equinox.

Round 1 of battle. Enemy cleric can either Flamestrike the party fighter, or Turn the party Necropolitan. Enemy cleric wins initiative, decides to Turn, fighter survives and the party wins the combat. Thank you Necropolitan!

The rules do not penalize a PC for being disabled in combat. They penalize a PC for not showing up to combat in the first place.

[Bhaakon]

So, they weren't trying to cheat, but they managed to cheat anyway, just by playing smart within the rules? How does that work?

Because while the charisma synergy was nice for the character's build, other aspects of being undead were very much not.

[Ravens_cry]

I have far too many campaign ideas as it is, but I'd love to make a campaign where the rare types are the majority, with an undead race, a 'taur (as in centaur) race, a gaggle of magical robots, a dragon people, that kind of thing. Maybe even a naga race, because, dammit, naga are cool.
Humans (commonly called 'the Ship People, because their ancestors were transported here on pan-dimensional storm abord, and this and trade is still their primary expertise.) are in the setting, but they are the minority.

[Divayth Fyr]

I don't lower their point buy, but I doubled the PB cost for each point of charisma (under the reasoning that increasing charisma was essentially increasing charisma and constitution).
Would you do the same if charisma wasn't useful (apart from acting as con) to the build? And with this reasoning you should make increasing charisma during levelup also cost twice as much (by skipping the next ability advancement the character gets) ;)

[Zanos]

I have far too many campaign ideas as it is, but I'd love to make a campaign where the rare types are the majority, with an undead race, a 'taur (as in centaur) race, a gaggle of magical robots, a dragon people, that kind of thing. Maybe even a naga race, because, dammit, naga are cool.
Humans (commonly called 'the Ship People, because their ancestors were transported here on pan-dimensional storm abord, and this and trade is still their primary expertise.) are in the setting, but they are the minority.

I wouldn't mind seeing what what a fleshed-out(heh) culture of non-evil intelligent undead would be like. Or, at least, not ALL evil. The entire idea would be a nice change from humans and their derivative being so ubiquitous.

[Ravens_cry]

I wouldn't mind seeing what what a fleshed-out(heh) culture of non-evil intelligent undead would be like. Or, at least, not ALL evil. The entire idea would be a nice change from humans and their derivative being so ubiquitous.
I was thinking something like ghouls, though without the touch factor, because a racial auto-shut down that scales is just too much. They hunger after meat and raw just tastes better to them. Being immune to disease helps them not care too much how old the flesh is. Eating the flesh of an intelligent being is extremely satisfying, like the most ambrosial meal you ever tasted, practically a drug, but it makes them begin to rot and decay from the inside out. The more they eat, the more they decay.
A very calm, sonorous people, they are willing to wait things out usually, being immortal helps with that, which contrasts to their attitude around meat, which tends to be a very 'in the present' kind of thing. Perhaps give them a subtle middle eastern flavour as the word ghoul comes from Arabic.

[LordBlades]

Fair enough; let's put it this way: if at any time a character was not flat-footed during the encounter, they gain XP for participating.

That's unnecessarily harsh IMO. So if the party meets a one-monster encounter (like a dragon), wizard wins initiative, hits it with a save-or-die, dragon fails save and dies, only wizard gets xp?

Personally I'd define 'participate' as 'be there when initiative is rolled'. Being affected by a spell/ability used in a given encounter firmly counts as participating IMO, even if said ability incapacitates the respective character.

[TuggyNE]

Enemy cleric attempts to turn party necropolitan.

A: Enemy cleric succeeds in nailing the party up. If someone avoids this and kills the cleric, party dies. If the cleric is not killed, party is incapacitated for the next 24 hours. Hopefully they are high enough to 'survive' the process.

A(2): Enemy cleric succeeds. The encounter lasts for the next 24 hours, after which the party subsequently kills the cleric who has undead in his control but clearly cannot handle the party he just nailed up and turned undead..

B: Enemy cleric fails (Lacking the cursed nails, the proper words for the ritual, no undead in control to chant, ect.) Proceed normally or the party dies, pending on circumstance.

Not sure if serious. :smallconfused: The reference was to Turn Undead on the party's necropolitan, not converting the party to necropolitans.


That's unnecessarily harsh IMO. So if the party meets a one-monster encounter (like a dragon), wizard wins initiative, hits it with a save-or-die, dragon fails save and dies, only wizard gets xp?

I can see where you're coming from on this, game-wise, but the more I think about it the more I consider that it's difficult to reasonably gain XP if you were barely even aware the fight had started yet.

However, that's not to say this should be a common thing; save-or-dies should be carefully handled to make it difficult for this to ever really happen, whether by giving the dragon ablative defenses of some sort (rerolls? contingencies? just plain old immunity spells that need to be dispelled?), by nerfing SoDs, or by asking the wizard player not to use SoDs.

In the absence of such a fix, though, it's probably not worth it to implement this change.


Personally I'd define 'participate' as 'be there when initiative is rolled'. Being affected by a spell/ability used in a given encounter firmly counts as participating IMO, even if said ability incapacitates the respective character.

Trying to remember whether initiative is rolled before or after a surprise round for characters that are surprised…. Otherwise that's probably mostly fine.

[Curmudgeon]

Trying to remember whether initiative is rolled before or after a surprise round for characters that are surprised…. Otherwise that's probably mostly fine.
Surprised characters roll initiative after the surprise round is concluded (Dungeon Master's Guide, page 23).

[Xuldarinar]

Not sure if serious. :smallconfused: The reference was to Turn Undead on the party's necropolitan, not converting the party to necropolitans.


Completely misinterpreted that then.
:smalleek: