Vampire + Ring of Sustenance (or similar effect)

[SangoProduction]

NOTE: I reread the Vampire template, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) and mentions nothing about "needing" to sleep or eat anyway, just that it has the option to drain blood....hmm. What do you guys think about that?

So, Ring of Sustenance "continually provides its wearer with life-sustaining nourishment." Similar effects make it so you don't have to eat, sleep, or breathe, like that Child of Night prc from Tome of Magic. Vow of Poverty (yes, I know) specifically says you don't need to eat or drink.
And there are many other (better) ways of getting easy sustenance, but since these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, I'll use these.

Vampires already have the breathing thing handled. But the "eating" part (as well as the sleeping) are what are interesting. It really depends on whether draining blood counts as eating or drinking, but not needing to drink is probably assumed by the not needing to eat part.

In my worlds, unlife is as much life as not-unlife are - they are simply damaged by what heals the other, and vice versa. The book doesn't ever say that undead aren't alive, only that they are undead, which has a different definition than "not-dead" in this context, though also much different from "actually dead". [In D&D terms that's "anything with the undead subtype."] So, my first sentence of the paragraph simply simplifies this and gives it a concrete answer.

Would Ring of Sustenance (either with my definition, and without it), allow the vampire be able to forego eating and drinking? Even if the life-sustaining stuff doesn't work due to a definitions not working or whatever, then what about Vow of Poverty or Child of Night's sustenance?

Also, normally, the part about ignoring (or reducing) sleep...does that mean the vampire can be active during the day (obviously needing protection from the sun, or to avoid it)?

And, obviously, none of this would break the game (partially due to the options, aside from the ring, being exceptionally weak), although it can be quite shocking to see a vampire attack during the day, and never need a coffin.

[Ger. Bessa]

Afb right now, but the necessity of blood and its consequences are detailed in "Libris Mortis" (LM) a.k.a "It's undead outside". There's a whole chapter on what not drinking blood/draining level or stats does to one undead.

Can't remember if there's something about the ring but it's supposed to be a big curse, so the basic 1000gp ring should not be enough on a WBL balance pov.

[BWR]

Whatever the RAW turns out to be, I would never allow it as a GM. Vampirism is supposed to be a curse, and you can't get out of the most defining features of that while retaining the beneficial side effects, especially not with a cheap-ass ubiquitous magic item.

[nyjastul69]

In general undead don't need to eat, sleep or breathe. The need to feed could be considered eating I suppose. I wouldn't allow an item that gives life-sustaining nourishment to work on something that isn't alive though. This would be a no-go at my table.

[Necroticplague]

Vampire's don't need to eat or drink, as undead. No matter how long they go without blood, they're physically fine. The only problem is that they take WIS damage, which will eventually cause them to go nuts and feed on whatever's closest. Of course, there's an easy way around this:

1.Technicality. Creature's without a CON score are immune to ability damage in general. Thus, vampires are actually immune to the downside of going without blood, because some morons didn't bother to look up their own rules.

(Incidentally, the part about CON nonability actually DOES state that undead aren't alive. Anything that lives has a consitution score of at least one. Ergo, things without a constituion score aren't alive. Which isn't the same thing as dead, given constructs and undead.)

Reference because some people seem to disbeleive me when i've said that before:

Constitution: Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution has no body (a spectre, for example) or no metabolism (a golem). It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. For example, a zombie is unaffected by any type of poison but is susceptible to a disintegrate spell. 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).

2.Binding. A one-level dip for neberius gets you ability fast healing, which will heal the wisdom damage faster than you take it.

3.Wand of Restoration. Eternal, if you can find them.


To answer other questions: Yes, vampires can be active 24/7, assuming they avoid the sun during the day. They don't need a Ring of Sustenance for them, as undead don''t sleep.

No, anything that eliminates your need to eat doesn't stop a vampire's inescapable craving or diet dependence, because vampires still don't need to eat, as undead, already.

@BWR
Really? Vampire already punishes you bad enough with the massive LA, going up in smoke in water or sunlight, losing your con score,and thus bonus HP, which, combined with the loss of HD from the LA, mean you're made of paper, having a hard time traveling (running water and building limitation), and people being able to just become immune to you with a standard action. The need to drain energy and blood every once in a while is the least of their problems, and they don't need any extra onus placed on them.

[Curmudgeon]

Of course, there's an easy way around this:

1.Technicality. Creature's without a CON score are immune to ability damage in general. Thus, vampires are actually immune to the downside of going without blood, because some morons didn't bother to look up their own rules.
It looks like they actually wrote in an override, just not very clearly.
Traits
An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).


No Constitution score....

Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.

As you noted, no Constitution score normally makes a creature immune to all ability damage. The immunity trait following that limits it to just the physical ability scores, and thus a Vampire can suffer Wisdom damage from not feeding.

But, as I said, not written clearly.

[Necroticplague]

It looks like they actually wrote in an override, just not very clearly.
As you noted, no Constitution score normally makes a creature immune to all ability damage. The immunity trait following that limits it to just the physical ability scores, and thus a Vampire can suffer Wisdom damage from not feeding.

But, as I said, not written clearly.

It's possible to have redundant traits. Undead are immune to all ability damage to their physical ability scores. This in no way contradicts them being immune to damage to all of their ability scores. There might be some substance to this argument if it specifically said that they took ability damage to their mental scores, but given how it doesn't, this is wishful thinking.

[Curmudgeon]

There might be some substance to this argument if it specifically said that they took ability damage to their mental scores, but given how it doesn't, this is wishful thinking.
But there is, in Libris Mortis: Vampires take Wisdom ability damage (a mental score). That's where we got started on this issue.

[elonin]

There aren't any RAW reasons a ring of sustenance wouldn't satisfy the vampires hunger. Another thought is the literary device in the vampire genre about the hunger which made it a driving force for the characters. Guess it depends on the game play you are after.

[Tuvarkz]

There aren't any RAW reasons a ring of sustenance wouldn't satisfy the vampires hunger. Another thought is the literary device in the vampire genre about the hunger which made it a driving force for the characters. Guess it depends on the game play you are after.

Consider the following, however: Vampires take WIS damage, not CHA damage (Which would make them weaker by reducing their Fort saves against effects that can also affect objects/Overall HP). Their drive for blood could be compared more to an addiction than a dietary need. In that case, the Ring of Sustenance wouldn't work, as the Ring of Sustenance seems to fulfill dietary needs rather than psychological ones/addictive needs, and the vampires don't strictly need the former.

[Necroticplague]

There aren't any RAW reasons a ring of sustenance wouldn't satisfy the vampires hunger. Another thought is the literary device in the vampire genre about the hunger which made it a driving force for the characters. Guess it depends on the game play you are after.

Actually, there is.
1.It only provides life sustaining nourishment. Vampires have no life-sustaining nourishment possible, being undead, and thus not needing to eat (as well as not having any life to nourish).
2. Diet dependencies=/=needing to eat.

[BWR]

@BWR
Really? Vampire already punishes you bad enough with the massive LA, going up in smoke in water or sunlight, losing your con score,and thus bonus HP, which, combined with the loss of HD from the LA, mean you're made of paper, having a hard time traveling (running water and building limitation), and people being able to just become immune to you with a standard action. The need to drain energy and blood every once in a while is the least of their problems, and they don't need any extra onus placed on them.

Yes, really. Not everything in the game is about mechanics and optimization. The in-universe curse of vampirism isn't "well, for some odd reason they can't learn things as quickly and are somehow more and possibly less resistant to physical trauma at the same time" it's "they are cursed to feed on the blood of the living and take damage from the sun".

[Lord Vukodlak]

But there is, in Libris Mortis: Vampires take Wisdom ability damage (a mental score). That's where we got started on this issue.

Specific trumps general everyone remember that rule. The immunity is a general rule, while the starving aspect in Mortis is a specific rule, thus its an exception.

[Curmudgeon]

Specific trumps general everyone remember that rule. The immunity is a general rule, while the starving aspect in Mortis is a specific rule, thus its an exception.
Exactly. And general immunity to ability damage is a property of having no CON, while immunity to only physical ability damage is a specific Undead trait.

[Necroticplague]

Exactly. And general immunity to ability damage is a property of having no CON, while immunity to only physical ability damage is a specific Undead trait.

Except that immunity to all ability damage and immunity to mental ability are redundant, not contradictory. It's entirely possible to have both.

[elonin]

Is there any material outside of LM that has the need to eat for undead? sure they gain temp hp but don't suffer a penalty otherwise.

[ShurikVch]

Note: Vampire with Incorporeal subtype not only don't need to drink blood, but actively incapable to do it.
Unbodied (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/unbodied.htm) Vampire... :smallamused:

[Curmudgeon]

Except that immunity to all ability damage and immunity to mental ability are redundant, not contradictory. It's entirely possible to have both.
Why is this not contradictory? The CON nonability which (normally) gives immunity to all ability damage is mentioned first in the Undead type. What, then, is the point of stipulating explicitly that Undead have immunity to physical ability damage after that, if not to reduce the scope of their immunity?

It's not like these two immunity statements are from different sources; they're individual bullet items in Undead Type traits.

[atemu1234]

I use an effect like this for Vamps, but it's a houserule.

A vampire may go up to one day for point of constitution drained without drinking blood. For each day after that, they must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1 per day without drinking blood) or lose 1d4 points of charisma. A vampire must make a will save (DC 5 +1 per day without drinking blood) or immediately attack a nearby being with a constitution score. If reduced to zero charisma, the vampire is reduced to a shambling husk, mindlessly hunting the nearest victim. If a vampire who has lost charisma drinks blood, they restore one point of charisma per point of constitution drained, before they may 'bank' constitution for days without blood.

Granted, I used this in a campaign that had something like thirty different subtypes of vampire, taken from Advanced Bestiary, Book of Templates, D&D, Homebrew and Pathfinder. It wound up... interestingly. It never really got up off the ground, but technically still exists in the campaign world I set up. Which means somewhere, a Patriarch vampire is currently trying to stop the awakening of the first vampire.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Except that immunity to all ability damage and immunity to mental ability are redundant, not contradictory. It's entirely possible to have both.

I was pointing out that the specific rule of starving undead taking wisdom damage overrides the general rule of immunity.
I personally would have written it as an ability penalty (which undead are not immune to) and have had the crazy happen at wisdom 1.

[TheifofZ]

First: By default, normal undead do not sleep, eat, drink, or breathe. If they have a physical body, the flesh is sustained specifically by the negative energy coursing through it, so they have no need for any of the usual necessities of the living. The undead aren't 'differently alive', after all. Skeletons are the easiest example of this, as they have no organs that require sustenance, no soft flesh that could break down without the things the living need. A skeleton could drift for centuries through space without ever feeling a single negative effect. Vampires are also undead, and therefor they have the same needs of the skeleton; none at all. No sleep, food, air, or drink.
Second: several kinds of undead are Diet Dependent. This term is exclusive to undead, but does not mean they need their required diet to survive, but instead that the method of animation that turns them into the specific type of undead directly links them with that specific type of diet, and fuels a constant need for it inside them. Vampires don't need blood, ghouls don't need fresh meat, and wights don't need the life force of the living to keep them going any more than I need chocolate, or you need french fries.
However, these kinds of undead are so fixated on their dependency that if they go for too long without it, their minds begin to break down as the bond that is forged with their diet dependency pushes them to consume.

I'd rule that a Ring of Sustenance does not negate a vampires need for blood, as the blood is not in any way sustenance. Since the Ring of Sustenance doesn't ward off drug addiction withdrawals which the Dietary Dependence closely mimics (though is fundamentally different from), then there's no reason it should sustain any kind of undead through their Dietary Dependence.

Edit: Also, undead with a Diet Dependency is explicitly not immune to the ability damage caused by a lack of feeding, but Diet Dependency is an optional rule in the first place, created to give undead PCs some feeling of urgency at all, as otherwise their lack of Con means that, aside from absolutely dire circumstances, time is merely a suggestion and not a necessity.

[Strigon]

Excuse me people, are we reading the same book here?

Undead Type: Undead are once-living creatures animated by
spiritual or supernatural forces.
Traits: An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless
otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
...
—Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or
energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores
(Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and
exhaustion effects.
...


That says ability drain, which is not ability damage.
They are immune to all ability drain, and also to damage to their physical abilities.

[Necroticplague]

Excuse me people, are we reading the same book here?


That says ability drain, which is not ability damage.
They are immune to all ability drain, and also to damage to their physical abilities.

Yes, you're missing an important detail

No Constitution score.
Now, let's head on over to the Special Abilities section, header: Nonabilities, sub-header: Constitution, to see what happens to a creature without a Constitution score.

Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. 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).
Highlighted the relevant portions.

[dascarletm]

Do you have a counter to the specific rule of vampire diet dependency presented in LM overriding the general rule of creatures with no ability score?

If not this is all moot.

[Necroticplague]

Do you have a counter to the specific rule of vampire diet dependency presented in LM overriding the general rule of creatures with no ability score?

If not this is all moot.

Yes. The rules in LM apply to vampires in general, of which vampires with no constitution are a subset, therefore making the rules about a vampire with no constitution more specific than the rules for vampires in general. Any vampire with a constitution score would be subject to the ability damage, while vampires without constitution are protected from the damage.

[TheifofZ]

Yes. The rules in LM apply to vampires in general, of which vampires with no constitution are a subset, therefore making the rules about a vampire with no constitution more specific than the rules for vampires in general. Any vampire with a constitution score would be subject to the ability damage, while vampires without constitution are protected from the damage.

Actually, the variant rule that causes this very specifically uses the word "Undead", rather than Vampire. That is: "Variant Rule: Undead Hunger"

As has been stated often, undead, by default, have a Con Score of -, so a vampire that falls into the group that the variant rule applies to automatically has no Con score.
So the only vampires that this rule explicitly applies to are the sub-group, not the whole.

Finally, the entire rule that causes this is an optional one that a DM can opt not to use, and clearly has final say over.
But I see no reason why a rule that specifically mentions Undead taking ability damage due to special circumstances would not bypass the immunity to ability damage as being a specific rule trumping the general immunity rule.

Edit: Upon further reflection: If there's an Undead Vampire out there with an actual Con score, than that vampire would be a specific exception to the normal rule of Undead having no Con Score.
However, an Undead with a Con score, while being beyond strange, would not have the Ability Score Damage Immunity that this whole kerfluffle causes.
So there are: theoretical Living Vampires that don't fall under the Diet Dependency Rules, Undead Vampires with No Con Score that are within the specific group mentioned (and therefor hit by Specific trumping General), and theoretical Undead Vampires with a Con Score aren't immune to the damage by default.
No matter how I look at this, the rule (and damage) applies to Undead Vampires.

[Lord Vukodlak]

But I see no reason why a rule that specifically mentions Undead taking ability damage due to special circumstances would not bypass the immunity to ability damage as being a specific rule trumping the general immunity rule.
Exactly, its a specific rule that works on specific undead in specific circumstances. Its also not the only thing in the book that specifically overrides an undead's immunities.

[TheifofZ]

Exactly, its a specific rule that works on specific undead in specific circumstances. Its also not the only thing in the book that specifically overrides an undead's immunities.

Sorry I ninja'd the point of your original post. :smalltongue:

[dascarletm]

Yes. The rules in LM apply to vampires in general, of which vampires with no constitution are a subset, therefore making the rules about a vampire with no constitution more specific than the rules for vampires in general. Any vampire with a constitution score would be subject to the ability damage, while vampires without constitution are protected from the damage.

:smallconfused:

I think we both know that the structure of these concepts would fall as such

>Creatures without a con score
>>Undead
>>>Vampires

Thus a rule applying to something sans con score is more general, since lacking a con score is more wide-sweeping and unspecific.

A rule pertaining to creatures without con scores is a more general rule than something pertaining to a specific type of creature. Even more specific is something that applies to a subset of a creature type.

Your thought process would be valid if there was a rule specifying vampires with or without con scores, otherwise that's just illogical.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes. The rules in LM apply to vampires in general, of which vampires with no constitution are a subset, therefore making the rules about a vampire with no constitution more specific than the rules for vampires in general.
I don't know where you're getting this idea from, but combinations of rules have no "specificity" in the RAW. It's only individual rules which have a hierarchy. From page 5 of Rules Compendium:
ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).
dascarletm already provided the hierarchy, but I'll go through it with regard to the above rule.

No CON score is a general rule.
Undead traits are specific to that type of creature.
Vampires have special treatment with regard to Wisdom damage in Libris Mortis.

Personally, I believe immunity to physical damage overrides the general CON nonability immunity in Undead traits, in which case Wisdom damage is already possible for Vampires. But if you disagree on that point, that just makes Vampires failing to feed an exception, which thus overrides the Undead traits.

[SangoProduction]

Yes, the weakness to at least this self-inflicted Wisdom damage applies, if using the alternate rule.

OK, so it's not thought that Ring of Sustenance will help the vampire, but what about other effects, like Child of Night, where the wording is specifically "do not need to eat". Since the alternate rules are called "Dietary Dependencies", I'd consider draining blood eating as opposed to drinking.