Nonhumanoid Wights?

[SovelsAtaask]

For a while now I've been aware that killing something by giving it as many negative levels as it has hit dice creates a wight. And I recently had a Dread Necromancer join in my game in place of a Crusader that had to drop out. Since we now have a necromancer, negative levels are probably going to be a thing that happens, so I looked up wights again. Apparently they're humanoid only.

How ridiculous would things get if I expanded wights to be able to be produced by any type of creature? I know adding monstrous humanoids to the list wouldn't probably be too bad and they're probably the closest to humanoids. But how bad would things get if everything they kill by negative levels becomes a wight? Would a couple wight bunnies absolutely wreck the local ecosystem?

Should I even use the unintentional wight making rule? Honestly, it probably won't affect the players directly too much unless she gets negative level crazy and then goes back into a dungeon they already cleared out.

EDIT: Apparently the the rules on the SRD say nothing about type, but all killed critters turning into medium wights makes little since. I am mostly talking about the wight template from Savage Species, which I like because it makes things less homogenous. No idea how good it is, though.

[Spore]

Now I know this isn't the homebrew forum and you probably prefer an official ruling to my personal tastes but I have always felt that the death by level drain = wight is a rather stupid ruling. I prefer shadows. Why? Well, let me get my general understanding of D&D planes out.

Shadows are undead creatures. They are what the layman would describe as animated negative energy. So what would be more (un)natural than to raise a shadow from a level drained creature? Have the humanoid corpses cling to their bodies because of their sentience and their inability to imagine any other (un)life other than a corporeal one (and thus creating a wight) and make any other creature dying by negative energy a case-by-case decision.

Anything below 2 Int should probably not become an undead by itself at all.

[Arbane]

But how bad would things get if everything they kill by negative levels becomes a wight?

Ever hear the term "Zombapocalypse"?

Like that, only worse.

(Many gallons of pixels have been spilled by D&D fans trying to explain why The Wightocalypse hasn't already overwhelmed every D&D world ever.)

[Psyren]

If you want to get technical, the rule is that a character who dies of negative levels rises as a wight. So if you want a RAW way to forestall wight bunnies, you have it.

For what it's worth, Pathfinder chose to do away with the "death by negative levels = wight" rule. Do with that information what you will.

[RedMage125]

There's a Wight template in Savage Species

[Spore]

If you want to get technical, the rule is that a character who dies of negative levels rises as a wight.

I don't want to go at it too lawyery but is a character defined as something with class levels or is a character defined as 'being controlled by a player other than the DM'?

[Florian]

I don't want to go at it too lawyery but is a character defined as something with class levels or is a character defined as 'being controlled by a player other than the DM'?

To be more precise, it is "The character being played by an actual player" and excludes stuff like cohorts and hirelings. Yes, that is very meta.

[MyrPsychologist]

I feel like this is a really, really bad idea.

If you allow anything to become a wight you have to consider how breakable this is in a broad sense. Both for players or for NPCs. What is to stop an individual with the ability to use negative levels from hitting a single rat in a sewer system? This would very easily snowball until the local ecosystem is a wight and strikes the surface. Think vermintide but even worse. And let's go beyond just rats in a sewer, what about isolated ecosystems? Your original question was about bunnies but I feel like that is an overly tame concept. I feel like the propensity for this to tip an entire region into chaos is extremely high with something as benign as a rabbit but just skyrockets if something worse turns. I'm imagining flocks of birds, of swarms of wasps, or a pack of wolves. And then you have to consider migration, hunters, spreading. It would be kind of like World War Z where the entire world is very easily consumed by zombies because of an isolated outbreak that became too big to control.

What if someone just buys a ton of chickens and turns them? You could easily ruin any setting by just dropping a few gold on chickens, sitting them in a portable hole, and then having a deployable wightpocalypse to use at your leisure.

[Andezzar]

If you want to get technical, the rule is that a character who dies of negative levels rises as a wight. So if you want a RAW way to forestall wight bunnies, you have it.

For what it's worth, Pathfinder chose to do away with the "death by negative levels = wight" rule. Do with that information what you will.


I don't want to go at it too lawyery but is a character defined as something with class levels or is a character defined as 'being controlled by a player other than the DM'?


To be more precise, it is "The character being played by an actual player" and excludes stuff like cohorts and hirelings. Yes, that is very meta.
Unfortunately not:
character: A fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting. The words “character” and “creature” are often used synonymously within these rules, since almost any creature could be a character within the game, and every character is a creature (as opposed to an object).So yes, even bunnies (whether controlled by the DM or other players) are characters.

[ShurikVch]

Dragon #300 have another Wight template (LA: +4), which can be applied to "any corporeal creature except constructs, oozes, and undead"

[John Longarrow]

In my game I've always hated how easy it is to spawn undead. I decided that only those being that choose undeath at the moment they die come back instead of everything spawning. Avoids destroying all life on the world when a necromancer decides to sick a pack of shadows on a city.

If you really look at how diseases progress, and spawning undead follow that pattern, you would quickly convert your entire planet to undead if you did follow the rules to their logical conclusion. Similar thing SHOULD be happening with lycanthropy.

[Spore]

If you really look at how diseases progress, and spawning undead follow that pattern, you would quickly convert your entire planet to undead if you did follow the rules to their logical conclusion. Similar thing SHOULD be happening with lycanthropy.

Except you know, magic wielding clerics.

[Psyren]

Unfortunately not:So yes, even bunnies (whether controlled by the DM or other players) are characters.

"Often" != "always." In fact, your quote quite literally means that there are instances where character does not mean creature. Therefore, you still have RAW justification to avoid following the wight rabbit. (Sorry, couldn't help myself :smallbiggrin:)

[Andezzar]

"Often" != "always." In fact, your quote quite literally means that there are instances where character does not mean creature. Therefore, you still have RAW justification to avoid following the wight rabbit. (Sorry, couldn't help myself :smallbiggrin:)The Wight Wabbit however still is a " fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting." So you would need an explicit rule to make him not a character. I'd really like to find a creature that does not fit that description.
Per definition he is also a creature (it has a WIS and CHA scores)

[Psyren]

The Wight Wabbit however still is a " fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting." So you would need an explicit rule to make him not a character. I'd really like to find a creature that does not fit that description.
Per definition he is also a creature (it has a WIS and CHA scores)

You should quote the whole thing:


character: A fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting. The words “character” and “creature” are often used synonymously within these rules, since almost any creature could be a character within the game, and every character is a creature (as opposed to an object).

"Almost," by definition, means "not all." All characters are creatures, but not all creatures are characters. Therefore it's up to the GM to decide which creatures are not characters, and wight wabbits can be wascally walloped.

[Strigon]

What stops the wightopocalypse is the same things that stops every other type of apocalypse in D&D: the fact that there's always something more powerful.
I'm confident that if you dropped a 20th level adventuring party into the end stages of such a scenario, they'd still save the world and make it home for dinner.

[Flickerdart]

...I looked up wights again. Apparently they're humanoid only.
This is not the case. Dying from negative levels makes a wight regardless of what you used to be. Bunnies make human-shaped wights. Dragons make human-shaped wights. So by RAW, bunny wights will be "a weird and twisted reflection" of a bunny, "about the height and weight of a human."

[Andezzar]

Please show me a creature the is not a fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting. A DM claiming that a creature isn't a character without explicit rules saying it isn't a fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting or denying it character status is making up a houserule.

The first sentence is the definition of character, anything that fits that definition is a character. The rest is an explanation how the definitions of character and creature interact.

So anything that is both a fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting and not an object must be both a character and a creature.

For your convenience:
creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms “creature” and “character” are sometimes used interchangeably.

Put differently a creature that is not fictional, not an individual or not confined within a fantasy game setting is not a character. If a creature has all the above characteristics, it is a character unless an explicit rule says otherwise.

[Psyren]

Even your additional quote specifically says "sometimes." Not all creatures are characters. A DM who says that all creatures count as characters is, to use your own phrase, "making up a houserule."

[Segev]

This is not the case. Dying from negative levels makes a wight regardless of what you used to be. Bunnies make human-shaped wights. Dragons make human-shaped wights. So by RAW, bunny wights will be "a weird and twisted reflection" of a bunny, "about the height and weight of a human."

That is, somehow, more horrifying than any alternative I've heard. And thus is wonderful for the right campaign.

Undeath grotesquely twists small/cute things into (comparatively) enormous monsters, and diminishes and twists large and terrifying things into shadows of their former selves that are nonetheless pretty darned scary.

2 slam attacks leaves a lot of leeway for what delivers them; the forelimbs can be elongated, shrunken, bloated, or twisted any which way to make them work for this. A bunny-wight is a twisted horrific version out of the worst Watership Down artwork, with forelimbs or even ears flopping about to slam into foes, sixish feet tall and 200ish pounds. A horse-wight is shrunken to a Medium creature, still about six feet tall but perhaps missing its back half, head bent down to deliver the slam attacks like a swinging pendulum, left-right, left-right. A beholder-wight is a deflated sack that hangs about 5-7 feet from top to bottom, barely supporting itself on the ground as it moves with frightening speed on that gastropodal bottom that supports it. Eye stalks sluggishly deliver up to two slams per round.

[dascarletm]

It may say that they are only sometimes one in the same, but from the description of a character, all creatures fall under that.

[Psyren]

It may say that they are only sometimes one in the same, but from the description of a character, all creatures fall under that.

Except they can't, because "almost" means "not all."

The easiest way to reconcile the two viewpoints is to say that rabbits and similar creatures aren't individuals. Kind of how we treat them in the game, i.e. they have no statblock or all share the same statblock. Only true individuals can therefore become wights.

[ShurikVch]

The easiest way to reconcile the two viewpoints is to say that rabbits and similar creatures aren't individuals. Kind of how we treat them in the game, i.e. they have no statblock or all share the same statblock.By the Dragon #341, Rabbit is refluffed Cat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cat.htm)
(Fun fact - rabbit able to kill a 1st level character :smallbiggrin:)

[Psyren]

By the Dragon #341, Rabbit is refluffed Cat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cat.htm)
(Fun fact - rabbit able to kill a 1st level character :smallbiggrin:)

In which case the latter one (all have one statblock, therefore not individuals) would apply.

The thought of a bunny disemboweling a commoner makes me giggle :smallbiggrin:

[ComaVision]

Thanks to this thread, my party is going to hear rumours of the Wight Rabbit next game.

[Andezzar]

Even your additional quote specifically says "sometimes." Not all creatures are characters. A DM who says that all creatures count as characters is, to use your own phrase, "making up a houserule."That may be the case, but a DM who says that any one fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting is not a character is breaking an explicit rule. So to remain within the rules you can only call creatures not characters if they are either not fictional, not individuals or not confined to a fantasy game setting.

To go back to the example the Wight Rabbit is a) fictional b) an individual c) confined to a fantasy game setting. So it is a character. It is also a creature. It is an otherwise active being and not an object (having CHA and WIS scores).

@Psyren: How does sharing stats make the rabbit not an individual? Each rabbit still is distinct from all other rabbits. Also the stat block does not set all properties that would differentiate one rabbit from another. Also by that logic dragons aren't individuals either :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

Each rabbit still is distinct from all other rabbits.

In our world, where things like DNA exist, sure. In D&D, no - rabbits, cats etc. all have identical stats. They are not individuals at all. In fact, they don't even have truenames. ToM 196:

"Only creatures with an intelligence score of 3 or higher have personal truenames. This excludes most animals, vermin or oozes, for example."

Furthermore, the D&D game has no definition of individual. The dictionary has several, and it is therefore up to the DM to pick one. One for instance specifies humans. Does that mean only humans can be characters? Of course not, but it does mean that there are some things that are not individuals, and therefore not characters, in the D&D game.

[Andezzar]

DNA is actually irrelevant for deciding whether a creature is an individual, even though you could argue that it does exist due to the rules about the prime material plane.

Each rabbit has a lot of characteristics besides its stat block that set it apart from all other rabbits. Its position is one, unless you give it average HP the actual HP are another property. And then there are all the little things that aren't in the stat block like exact size and weight, fur color, age etc.

You are not proposing to use the definition of human being for individual, are you? That would lead some weird consequences. Elves, dwarves etc. are no longer characters, regardless of who controls them.

If you deny the rabbit individuality, of course it would not be a character, but being made a wight should make it pretty individual.

[Psyren]

Each rabbit has a lot of characteristics besides its stat block that set it apart from all other rabbits. Its position is one, unless you give it average HP the actual HP are another property. And then there are all the little things that aren't in the stat block like exact size and weight, fur color, age etc.

You are not proposing to use the definition of human being for individual, are you? That would lead some weird consequences. Elves, dwarves etc. are no longer characters, regardless of who controls them.

I'm certainly not, but since we've established that RAW not all creatures are characters (only "almost"), a line has to be drawn somewhere, and the DM is the only one who can.

If you're asking what definition I would personally use, to me a good one is "a distinctive or original person." That throws out rabbits but keeps every NPC and PC human, dwarf and elf. But the point is that the DM has to decide since the game does not define it.



If you deny the rabbit individuality, of course it would not be a character, but being made a wight should make it pretty individual.

Which is irrelevant, because it has to be a character before it dies in order to rise as a wight.

[John Longarrow]

Except you know, magic wielding clerics.

Except they run out of magic much quicker than you run out of wights. That is unless your entire game is set up around everyone being a mid to high level cleric. :smallcool:

[dascarletm]

A wizard stops it. :smalltongue:

[John Longarrow]

Or a wizard (lich) starts it.

Heck, if your a 20th level wizards who's chosen undeath, why not hit up a medium size town, kill the local priest, and let loose a few summoned wights on the inhabitants? You can keep the stuck inside all night long until you've got a town full of undead. Control a couple and teleport to the next, and the next, and the next, until you've got the country side inhabited. Pretty soon you'll be able to lure the higher level casters/paladins out of the big cities, then sneak into one for conversion.

Once you get some decent momentum going wights work much better than zombies for destroying all life on the planet. Course for variety I'd also toss in shadows and a couple other types of spawning undead. Just make sure none are bright/powerful enough to take me on.

[Andezzar]

Congratulations you grasped the basics of the Wightpocalypse. If you go by the guidelines for the population of random settlements, you probably don't have to kill the priest of the hamlet as he either does not exist or is so low level that a wight would simply make a new wight out of him.

[dascarletm]

Sounds like an interesting campaign. I'm sure there will be plenty of worthy adversaries and challenges set up by the DM to make the game interesting for said lich.

[Bad Wolf]

At some point, Epic-level characters step in. And then the gods. And then the Archdevils, or Hell would have nothing to corrupt. And Mechanus, probably.

[MyrPsychologist]

It's important to remember that the vast majority of NPCs are supposed to be level 1 commoners. They aren't clerics and don't even have a real class. Of the remaining individuals only a small fraction will be clerics and even then they will likely only have a couple levels (if they're lucky).

Unless a GM decides to rule 0 this and throw in extremely powerful cleric NPCs or meddling gods that will actively intervene this kind of problem would VERY quickly grow faster than the capacity for the available clerics to curtail it.

[John Longarrow]

Hence why, for my campaign, they already have. Only those people who are inclined to become spawnable undead do so. Unfortunately had this come up in game when one of the characters was killed by a dread wraith. I told the player he could either pass on to the afterlife or assume the mantle of power and terror. Guy decided his character would want the power... Course now he can't be raised...

[Flickerdart]

Hence why, for my campaign, they already have. Only those people who are inclined to become spawnable undead do so. Unfortunately had this come up in game when one of the characters was killed by a dread wraith. I told the player he could either pass on to the afterlife or assume the mantle of power and terror. Guy decided his character would want the power... Course now he can't be raised...
If the wraith is killed, resurrection or true resurrection can bring him back no problemo.

[Andezzar]

Sure, but only if the character iswilling to come back.

[zergling.exe]

It's important to remember that the vast majority of NPCs are supposed to be level 1 commoners. They aren't clerics and don't even have a real class. Of the remaining individuals only a small fraction will be clerics and even then they will likely only have a couple levels (if they're lucky).

Unless a GM decides to rule 0 this and throw in extremely powerful cleric NPCs or meddling gods that will actively intervene this kind of problem would VERY quickly grow faster than the capacity for the available clerics to curtail it.

Someone actually ran the numbers on this and the results were quite surprising.

Using the tables in the DMG to determine populations and level, quite a large number of the population winds of having more than 1 level, and there are plenty of non commoners as well. The funniest parts in my opinion, are the large number of level 20 commoner's in a metropolis and thorps are filled with adventurers.

Unfortunately I don't remember where this information was, but it was on this forum about a year or so ago.

[Crake]

"Often" != "always." In fact, your quote quite literally means that there are instances where character does not mean creature. Therefore, you still have RAW justification to avoid following the wight rabbit. (Sorry, couldn't help myself :smallbiggrin:)

I think you meant that there are instances where a creature does not mean a character, because the quote literally says "and every character is a creature". So all characters are creatures, but not all creatures are characters.

[Psyren]

I think you meant that there are instances where a creature does not mean a character, because the quote literally says "and every character is a creature". So all characters are creatures, but not all creatures are characters.

Um... I literally said this in post #15 :smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:

[GilesTheCleric]

Someone actually ran the numbers on this and the results were quite surprising.

Using the tables in the DMG to determine populations and level, quite a large number of the population winds of having more than 1 level, and there are plenty of non commoners as well. The funniest parts in my opinion, are the large number of level 20 commoner's in a metropolis and thorps are filled with adventurers.

Unfortunately I don't remember where this information was, but it was on this forum about a year or so ago.

I also remember that thread, but don't have it bookmarked. What I do have is a JPG of some of the data:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd160/ryuusui-ken/citystat2_zps8cego7hh.jpg

Edit: If a reverse-image search won't turn up the thread, it looks like I downloaded that image on 03/24/15, if that helps in finding it.

[Jay R]

This has to be done sometime.

DM: Wandering through the forest, you come upon some bunnies. They seem extremely hungry - their flesh is desiccated and drawn over their bones. Their eyes look wild, burning, with a mix of desperation and perhaps even malevolence. Your druid gets the feeling that they've been through some truly horrible experience. They are looking at you longingly. What do you do?

[dascarletm]

This has to be done sometime.

DM: Wandering through the forest, you come upon some bunnies. They seem extremely hungry - their flesh is desiccated and drawn over their bones. Their eyes look wild, burning, with a mix of desperation and perhaps even malevolence. Your druid gets the feeling that they've been through some truly horrible experience. They are looking at you longingly. What do you do?

I assume the answer is throw a holy hand grenade?

[Andezzar]

I assume the answer is throw a holy hand grenade?But only if you count to three before throwing it.

[Segev]

But only if you count to three before throwing it.

One...
Two...
Five!

[dascarletm]

One...
Two...
Five!

Three sir.

[Jay R]

I assume the answer is throw a holy hand grenade?

Oh, I'm hoping some tender-hearted animal-loving player will have his character try to feed the poor hungry bunnies.

If he does, the poor, hungry bunnies will wind up eating.

[Segev]

Oh, I'm hoping some tender-hearted animal-loving player will have his character try to feed the poor hungry bunnies.

If he does, the poor, hungry bunnies will wind up eating.
If you're going by the RAW, they'll know something is up because the poor, hungry bunnies are "roughly human-sized."

[Andezzar]

And now we know why Anyanka is terrified of bunnies.

[SovelsAtaask]

If you're going by the RAW, they'll know something is up because the poor, hungry bunnies are "roughly human-sized."

As stated in the first post, I'm pretty much talking about the Wight template from Savage Species. Which says nothing about changing size.

What I'm gathering from this it that it definitely is a terrible thing to do. Or a great thing, depending on your perspective. Either way, the world ends.

[Psyren]

Either way, the world ends.

Sure, in a world with no good deities, good clerics, good outsiders, Good in general...

[Rijan_Sai]

And now we know why Anyanka is terrified of bunnies.

Bunnies aren't just "cute" like everybody supposes! They've got their hoppy legs and twitchy little noses! And what's with all the carrots? What do they need such good eyesight for, anyway?
Bunnies! Bunnies! It must be BUNNIES!

[Segev]

Bunnies aren't just "cute" like everybody supposes! They've got their hoppy legs and twitchy little noses! And what's with all the carrots? What do they need such good eyesight for, anyway?
Bunnies! Bunnies! It must be BUNNIES!

...or maybe slaymates?

[Flickerdart]

Sure, in a world with no good deities, good clerics, good outsiders, Good in general...
Or just people with a decent AC and to-hit. Wights are actually pretty weak - with no DR, special movement modes, or extraordinary senses, a wight is slingstone bait for a commoner village. Their only hope is to sneak up at night, but any community without sentries and brightly lit approach vectors is asking to be massacred anyway.

[Telok]

I also remember that thread, but don't have it bookmarked. What I do have is a JPG of some of the data:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd160/ryuusui-ken/citystat2_zps8cego7hh.jpg

Edit: If a reverse-image search won't turn up the thread, it looks like I downloaded that image on 03/24/15, if that helps in finding it.

Oh, that's mine. I did a simple statistical analysis on the class and level breakdown of the DMG rules. One thing that doesn't show up in that is the bit where the DMG tells you that 90% of the population is rural and to use the thorp and hamlet populations for them.

Because of a 10% chance for those two smallest population centers to have a mid-high level druid and/or ranger (with attendant followers) There are lots of druids and rangers around. I also wrote a little program to implement the tables, loop through them a thousand times, and average the results. The two sets of numbers were pretty close as I recall. Of course I broke the program trying to upgrade it later, just another thing on the old to-do-someday list now.

[dascarletm]

Or just people with a decent AC and to-hit. Wights are actually pretty weak - with no DR, special movement modes, or extraordinary senses, a wight is slingstone bait for a commoner village. Their only hope is to sneak up at night, but any community without sentries and brightly lit approach vectors is asking to be massacred anyway.

I was going to say something early about a simple stone wall stops the wightocalypse.

[ComaVision]

I was going to say something early about a simple stone wall stops the wightocalypse.

Wights aren't mindless, or even stupid.

[Andezzar]

Bunnies aren't just "cute" like everybody supposes! They've got their hoppy legs and twitchy little noses! And what's with all the carrots? What do they need such good eyesight for, anyway?
Bunnies! Bunnies! It must be BUNNIES!

...or maybe slaymates?I really miss a like button on this forum


What I'm gathering from this it that it definitely is a terrible thing to do. Or a great thing, depending on your perspective. Either way, the world ends.
What can't we face if we're together?
What's in this place that we can't weather?
Wightpocalypse?
We've all been there
The same old trips
Why should we care?

[ShurikVch]

As stated in the first post, I'm pretty much talking about the Wight template from Savage Species. Which says nothing about changing size.Just as variant in Dragon #300, which also don't limited to Humanoids


Sure, in a world with no good deities, good clerics, good outsiders, Good in general...I once read awesome fantasy book, where it was exactly like that: only three deities? and all of them are Evil


And now we know why Anyanka is terrified of bunnies.http://t01.deviantart.net/PvFuiEvqhruDEaKaje4K9VnBUKg=/300x200/filters:fixed_height%28100,100%29:origin%28%29/pre14/16d5/th/pre/i/2014/016/a/9/raven_is_afraid_of_bunnies_by_redfalcon821-d72bk9v.png

[Psyren]

I once read awesome fantasy book, where it was exactly like that: only three deities? and all of them are Evil.

Did it end in a wightocalypse and the setting imploding?

[Boci]

Did it end in a wightocalypse and the setting imploding?

Malazan Book of the Fallen had a similar approach. Not all gods-like beings were evil, but none of them where what you would call good. Noble evil and uncaring neutral seemed to be the best you could get with them.

[Melcar]

Doesn't the rules say "Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight"???

From what I can see, this is a DM ruling. But maybe theres a 50% or perpaps 25% that the energies lingers? Personally I would only allow a wight to raise another wight by leveldrain. Besides from spells that is. So if your DN is leveldraining NPC and monsters to death, they would just die in my game.