What happens if I cast create undead on the corpse of a party member?

[Lines]

As the question - does their statblock get replaced by that of the wight/ghast/whatever? If so, what then, would you count them as level 1, level whatever their CR is or what their level was before you raised them as their present level for determining how much xp they need to get class levels? If not, do I apply the racial modifiers 3.5 style (subtract 10 or 11 from the monster's scores, add the total (which can be negative, and so reduces the score) to the player's scores?

[PoeticDwarf]

As the question - does their statblock get replaced by that of the wight/ghast/whatever? If so, what then, would you count them as level 1, level whatever their CR is or what their level was before you raised them as their present level for determining how much xp they need to get class levels? If not, do I apply the racial modifiers 3.5 style (subtract 10 or 11 from the monster's scores, add the total (which can be negative, and so reduces the score) to the player's scores?
The PC is dead and makes a new character. The undead is an undead and has the undead statblock. Can only gain levels with hoisrules and has no level but is CR (?)

[CantigThimble]

Lichs and Vampires are the only undead that would retain class levels I believe. And those would probably be taken over by the DM since they change alignment in the process.

[Lines]

The PC is dead and makes a new character. The undead is an undead and has the undead statblock. Can only gain levels with hoisrules and has no level but is CR (?)

Not the case, player characters don't need houserules to take class levels. They're always able to, it's the basis of the game - and wights 'possess the memories and drives of their past lives', so they keep their personality, and unlike vampires etc there's nothing mentioned about the DM taking control of the character.

The houseruly bit comes in when figuring out how to take class levels - the 'becomes an x' line could easily be interpreted to mean you lose your statblock and keep that of the creature, and there are no guidelines on where your XP is at at that point. Are you basically level 1? Hence me asking peoples opinions.

[Lines]

Lichs and Vampires are the only undead that would retain class levels I believe. And those would probably be taken over by the DM since they change alignment in the process.

Actually for vampires the 'dm may take control' clause is separate to the alignment change, otherwise you could avoid by being the alignment of the creature already like you cana s a lycanthrope

[RickAllison]

The character would assume the appropriate stat block and, unless your DM was being particularly generous, have to retake all classes from L1. Additionally, the undead would not be the same person unless the DM allowed it. That being said, it does provide some interesting RP potential to play a ghast or some such that has gained a real personality and autonomy. Maybe have it wanting to be real, but knowing that to regain life would simply revive the original holder of this body.

The DMG does have rules for taking classes as a monster. They would need to be approved by the DM, but they exist. The odd thing that needs to be kept in mind is that health progression depends on the monster's hit die (not the class) and the proficiency bonus can be calculated using the CR rather than class level (this would very rarely come up, but so the PC who manages to get his CR above 20 gets a higher bonus than possible normally). Unless he was trying to get his CR up that far, it is unlikely he would. I do, but I'm desperate to play as Tiamat herself :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

This really is one of those areas that will vary game to game. What is most fun at your table? 5e gives no hard and fast rules, here, to my knowledge.

That said, I would suggest looking to raise dead as a point of comparison. I'm inclined to suggest they start over at level 1, but that might be too harsh. My concern is that just letting them have all their class levels AND the undead statblock will make them too powerful.

[kaoskonfety]

As the question - does their statblock get replaced by that of the wight/ghast/whatever? If so, what then, would you count them as level 1, level whatever their CR is or what their level was before you raised them as their present level for determining how much xp they need to get class levels? If not, do I apply the racial modifiers 3.5 style (subtract 10 or 11 from the monster's scores, add the total (which can be negative, and so reduces the score) to the player's scores?

While alot of thing are "ask the DM"

This is TOTALLY ask the DM.

My personal call would vary drastically from case to case, mostly setting driven.

Don't turn your buddies into the undead in Ravenloft - just DON'T. Some other setting this will bee less "DEAR GODS MAN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!!" and more "Well that's F***ing, awful and you are awful for doing it"

They would, at best, be handed the given monsters statblock and their current class abilities, maybe hit-dice/ hit points. No advancement till they are fixed - half because I don't want to figure it out and half because I want to seriously discourage this kinda crap.

At worst... the original player would handle most of the stuff with a note "you hunger endlessly for your creators flesh and hate all that lives" and I'd take the characters helm when PVP starts in earnest. It's not your buddy. Its a pile of body parts glued together by dark magic in the shape of a man.

[Segev]

It's not your buddy. Its a pile of body parts glued together by dark magic in the shape of a man.

The correct term is "ally" or "asset." And if you aren't controlling your undead allies in some fashion, and aren't prepared for their inevitable betrayals, you're a lousy necromancer and deserve what's coming.

[Lines]

While alot of thing are "ask the DM"

This is TOTALLY ask the DM.

My personal call would vary drastically from case to case, mostly setting driven.

Don't turn your buddies into the undead in Ravenloft - just DON'T. Some other setting this will bee less "DEAR GODS MAN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!!" and more "Well that's F***ing, awful and you are awful for doing it"

They would, at best, be handed the given monsters statblock and their current class abilities, maybe hit-dice/ hit points. No advancement till they are fixed - half because I don't want to figure it out and half because I want to seriously discourage this kinda crap.

At worst... the original player would handle most of the stuff with a note "you hunger endlessly for your creators flesh and hate all that lives" and I'd take the characters helm when PVP starts in earnest. It's not your buddy. Its a pile of body parts glued together by dark magic in the shape of a man.

Which is why I'm asking the DMs - curious to how everyone sees it. In your games it would be an inherently bad thing, while in others it would just be the 5e version of the necropolitan, a convenient way of becoming undead while keeping your mind.

[CantigThimble]

Not the case, player characters don't need houserules to take class levels. They're always able to, it's the basis of the game - and wights 'possess the memories and drives of their past lives', so they keep their personality, and unlike vampires etc there's nothing mentioned about the DM taking control of the character.

I actually think about this more like Speak with Dead, when you cast Speak with Dead you are talking to something that has those memories and inclinations but it sure isn't what was there before.

[RickAllison]

I actually think about this more like Speak with Dead, when you cast Speak with Dead you are talking to something that has those memories and inclinations but it sure isn't what was there before.

This guy has it. Discuss with your DM about the person having will to live/Macguffin power to retain a semblance of personality, else he might end up like Durkon :smallwink:

[Lines]

This guy has it. Discuss with your DM about the person having will to live/Macguffin power to retain a semblance of personality, else he might end up like Durkon :smallwink:

I really think you're one step ahead there - your DM can decide that's what it's like if he wants, then you discuss the will/macgufffin. As it is the book indicates a wight is the same person.

[Segev]

I really think you're one step ahead there - your DM can decide that's what it's like if he wants, then you discuss the will/macgufffin. As it is the book indicates a wight is the same person.

Well, except for the fact that now he's inherently part of the oppressive wight majority.



*ducks and RUNS*

[Lines]

Well, except for the fact that now he's inherently part of the oppressive wight majority.



*ducks and RUNS*

No need to duck and run, that's amazing.

[RickAllison]

Well, except for the fact that now he's inherently part of the oppressive wight majority.



*ducks and RUNS*

You get +1 Internet.

[OldTrees1]

As the question - does their statblock get replaced by that of the wight/ghast/whatever? If so, what then, would you count them as level 1, level whatever their CR is or what their level was before you raised them as their present level for determining how much xp they need to get class levels? If not, do I apply the racial modifiers 3.5 style (subtract 10 or 11 from the monster's scores, add the total (which can be negative, and so reduces the score) to the player's scores?

As a DM I would:

1) Ask the Necromancer to be specific in what kind of undead(although the spell narrows that down) however if the other player is willing I we could expand the options.
2) Ask the player of the dead PC if they would want to play the undead or make a new character
3) If the player wanted to play the undead they would get 2 options: Either I make a basic race* version and they retain their level, or I give them the advanced race** version at the cost of some number of levels (race specific guesswork here). I would spend say 10-30 minutes working with the player on this (including working out how the type of undead might impact the persona).
4) Ask the player of the dead PC if they would want to play the undead or make a new character (repeated for a reason)

*Some types would be a basic race + a feat(wight & ghoul have nice feat-like features)
**Racial modifiers 3.5 style with level calculated by examination rather than from abstract traits like CR.

[PoeticDwarf]

Not the case, player characters don't need houserules to take class levels. They're always able to, it's the basis of the game - and wights 'possess the memories and drives of their past lives', so they keep their personality, and unlike vampires etc there's nothing mentioned about the DM taking control of the character.

The houseruly bit comes in when figuring out how to take class levels - the 'becomes an x' line could easily be interpreted to mean you lose your statblock and keep that of the creature, and there are no guidelines on where your XP is at at that point. Are you basically level 1? Hence me asking peoples opinions.
Not true. Animate dead is more specific. And the PC is no longer a PC. It is a corpse

[Lines]

Not true. Animate dead is more specific.
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean create undead? And more specific about what?


And the PC is no longer a PC. It is a corpse
Yes, and when you cast create undead on it it becomes a wight. One that 'possess the memories and drives of its formerly living self'. Formerly living self doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, it specifically states the self remains.

The DM is free to change how things work, observe the vampire Durkon in the comics not being like how vampires work in 3.5, but as it is if you cast create undead and turn a party member into a wight they stay the same person, just reanimated with a hunger for the essence of the living. Which is quite a change to be sure, but it's still definitely the same person.

[CantigThimble]

While create undead doesn't have this exact same wording Speak with Dead is an example of a corpse with memories and drives it had in life (spiting its enemies and willingness/ability to deceive) without the actual soul. I consider this precedent that memories+drives=/=soul. Especially since ghouls have the whole eat people drive added on. Leaving it firmly in the realm of 'Ask your GM' like people have been suggesting.

"Until the spell ends, you can ask the corpse up to five questions. The corpse knows only what it knew in life, including the languages it knew. Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive, and the corpse is under no compulsion to offer a truthful answer if you are hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy. This spell doesn’t return the creature’s soul to its body, only its animating spirit. Thus, the corpse can’t learn new information, doesn’t comprehend anything that has happened since it died, and can’t speculate about future events."

[Keltest]

Corpses are corpses. Your hypothetical PC weight might be ticked with whoever killed them, or someone else related to the PC in some way, but its still a weight, and will act as a weight in all respects, what with it being a weight.

[RickAllison]

Corpses are corpses. Your hypothetical PC weight might be ticked with whoever killed them, or someone else related to the PC in some way, but its still a weight, and will act as a weight in all respects, what with it being a weight.

If you have every played the Kingdom Hearts series, wights could be likened to a Nobody. Essentially, they are a being who retains the memories and desires of their living form, but they don't have the same connection of why they have those. A wight of a vengeance paladin would be both obsessed with their revenge and also remember the incidents that led to the desire for vengeance. The issue is they do not understand why they should feel that way. I interpret being an intelligent undead as this awful experience where the creature not only loses who they were, but they are aware of exactly what they have lost. Hence why they tend to be so evil, they either don't know better or are acting on the terrible knowledge of life they have lost forever.

[Lines]

Corpses are corpses. Your hypothetical PC weight might be ticked with whoever killed them, or someone else related to the PC in some way, but its still a weight, and will act as a weight in all respects, what with it being a weight.

Pretty sure you mean Wight. And let me rephrase this: The elf will act like an elf in all respects, what with it being an elf. Once the day runs out and the spell isn't renewed, the Wight has free will - again, formerly living self doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.


While create undead doesn't have this exact same wording Speak with Dead is an example of a corpse with memories and drives it had in life (spiting its enemies and willingness/ability to deceive) without the actual soul. I consider this precedent that memories+drives=/=soul. Especially since ghouls have the whole eat people drive added on. Leaving it firmly in the realm of 'Ask your GM' like people have been suggesting.

Yes, it is. Speak with dead is indeed an example of a spell that specifically says it grants a semblance of intelligence instead of bringing the actual person back, just as the wight is the direct opposite. Observe the wording: 'its spirit is granted undeath so it can pursue its own malevolent agenda' and 'posses the memories and drives of its formerly living self'. You have indeed just pointed out that when a spell doesn't bring the actual person back it will specifically say so, thank you for that, and please note that not only does the wight make no mention of not being the same person it specifically states itself.

The ask your GM part is what happens next - there are no rules regarding if it keeps its class level or where it starts from in terms of taking class levels if it doesn't.

[CantigThimble]

Your argument was that drives+memories=soul. I was just giving an example of a situation where that wasn't true. It might be the case despite that, but I don't think it's as rock solid by RAW or RAI as you think it is.

[Lines]

Your argument was that drives+memories=soul. I was just giving an example of a situation where that wasn't true. It might be the case despite that, but I don't think it's as rock solid by RAW or RAI as you think it is.

No, I'd say the clincher is the 'self' part of the description. You are yourself. The self is you. It states in several different ways they stay the same person and gives no indication they aren't.

[Keltest]

No, I'd say the clincher is the 'self' part of the description. You are yourself. The self is you. It states in several different ways they stay the same person and gives no indication they aren't.

Except for a newfound hatred of the living and a general inclination for violence towards the same. A wight can hold a grudge. It wont necessarily understand why it has that grudge, or carry it for the same reasons. Its motivations will be starkly different after being raised, even if it was evil before it died. It might be similar, but it is not identical to the person they were when alive.

[Lines]

Except for a newfound hatred of the living and a general inclination for violence towards the same. A wight can hold a grudge. It wont necessarily understand why it has that grudge, or carry it for the same reasons. Its motivations will be starkly different after being raised, even if it was evil before it died. It might be similar, but it is not identical to the person they were when alive.

Except the major difference here is that the self remains and is changed. You're probably right about them not being identical - it says stuff like eternal war on the living, though it should be noted that that's the dark god's purpose in resurrecting you, not that you have some innate hatred of the living, although now that you desire to feed on them you're probably not going to be pals. The important part here is sentences like 'undead who were once mortals' - yes, there are probably some changes, but it's still the same person. Not the a similar spirit animating the body, not a new soul riding it Durkon style, the same person with a few new desires and a lot less pulse.

A person, changed is a lot different to a different person who is very similar. It's the difference between a wizard and his simulacrum, the simulacrum might be a copy identical in outlook and memories but it is not the wizard - even if after creating it the wizard goes through many changes and personality wise becomes quite a different man, he is still himself and his simulacrum is not.

[kaoskonfety]

The correct term is "ally" or "asset." And if you aren't controlling your undead allies in some fashion, and aren't prepared for their inevitable betrayals, you're a lousy necromancer and deserve what's coming.

Hence letting the old Player "drive" to build trust - its your old ally under PC control, no need to waste resources holding them in thrall! Now go to sleep mortal.... sleep deeply and dream of death...

Hell if they stay paranoid the player on the leash can make a game of "come on dude! its fine!" and drive the necromancer to drink (more).

[Lines]

Hence letting the old Player "drive" to build trust - its your old ally under PC control, no need to waste resources holding them in thrall! Now go to sleep mortal.... sleep deeply and dream of death...

Hell if they stay paranoid the player on the leash can make a game of "come on dude! its fine!" and drive the necromancer to drink (more).

Heh. Have the DM roll the knowledge (religion) check regarding whether it's your friend or just a creature with his memories behind the screen and tell you that yeah, it's totally your friend probably maybe.

[swrider]

Wight's have to feed off of humans as has been pointed out. Assuming all the PCs involved agreed to the change I would allow them to keep their class abilities and personality with one dark caveat. They would need to consume one living soul for each level every day. If they do not consume the necessary souls they their power will be reduced accordingly.

I.E. a spell caster will have spell slots as if they were a few levels lower. A fighter may loos some of their health and extra attacks or action surges. The exact penalties would be minor at first but would lead to the PC having the Wight stats if they do not routinely consume enough souls.

This would be for my current campaign which has a large undead focus. in a less undead centric campaign I may go the opposite direction and have the PC roll a new character. It will simply depend on what everyone finds fun at the time.

[Lines]

Wight's have to feed off of humans as has been pointed out. Assuming all the PCs involved agreed to the change I would allow them to keep their class abilities and personality with one dark caveat. They would need to consume one living soul for each level every day. If they do not consume the necessary souls they their power will be reduced accordingly.

I.E. a spell caster will have spell slots as if they were a few levels lower. A fighter may loos some of their health and extra attacks or action surges. The exact penalties would be minor at first but would lead to the PC having the Wight stats if they do not routinely consume enough souls.

This would be for my current campaign which has a large undead focus. in a less undead centric campaign I may go the opposite direction and have the PC roll a new character. It will simply depend on what everyone finds fun at the time.

Actually it hasn't been pointed out - I'm the only one who has mentioned wights and feeding, and the entry never says they need to. Zombies want to eat brains, but they won't be adversely affected if they can't acquire any. Sounds a good solution to balance out the mechanical benefit, but it should be noted the numbers are a little ridiculous there - a lich, pretty much the most powerful undead there is and therefore probably more energy intensive, can do a maximum of one soul per day and isn't implied to need it to be anywhere near that regular, a wight needing 15 souls a day is ridiculous.

[swrider]

Actually it hasn't been pointed out - I'm the only one who has mentioned wights and feeding, and the entry never says they need to. Zombies want to eat brains, but they won't be adversely affected if they can't acquire any. Sounds a good solution to balance out the mechanical benefit, but it should be noted the numbers are a little ridiculous there - a lich, pretty much the most powerful undead there is and therefore probably more energy intensive, can do a maximum of one soul per day and isn't implied to need it to be anywhere near that regular, a wight needing 15 souls a day is ridiculous.

I thought I had read it above. I also am away from book so did not review the exact stats to see what is required.

Good point on the number of souls It may be more reasonable to require one per month per level in that case. The more powerful you are as a character the more you must consume.

[Lines]

I thought I had read it above. I also am away from book so did not review the exact stats to see what is required.

Good point on the number of souls It may be more reasonable to require one per month per level in that case. The more powerful you are as a character the more you must consume.

Makes sense, plus it's a good balance for getting more powerful and therefore finding it easier to acquire targets - maybe damage would be better though? The wight's life drain is 1d6+2 necrotic damage, you could just select a certain amount of life must be drained per x period of time, plus it gives them more reward for going after powerful people - a commoner only has four hit points to drain, a stronger person has much more.

10 life per level per month?

[swrider]

Makes sense, plus it's a good balance for getting more powerful and therefore finding it easier to acquire targets - maybe damage would be better though? The wight's life drain is 1d6+2 necrotic damage, you could just select a certain amount of life must be drained per x period of time, plus it gives them more reward for going after powerful people - a commoner only has four hit points to drain, a stronger person has much more.

10 life per level per month?

sounds reasonable, but I would only count the life taken from creatures that are killed. This prevents the party from donating HP to the infected creature.

I should also note that while the PC-Wight was at higher levels the necromancer would be unable to control them unless they used a spell/ ability that affects an undead of equal CR to the PCs new (calculate CR, using guidelines in the DMG).

This is in addition to certain classes including clerics needing to find a new source for some of their abilities. I mean I doubt Pelor would grant spells to a wight-cleric. Though I would simply allow for this to be changed via role play.

[Lines]

sounds reasonable, but I would only count the life taken from creatures that are killed. This prevents the party from donating HP to the infected creature.

I should also note that while the PC-Wight was at higher levels the necromancer would be unable to control them unless they used a spell/ ability that affects an undead of equal CR to the PCs new (calculate CR, using guidelines in the DMG).

This is in addition to certain classes including clerics needing to find a new source for some of their abilities. I mean I doubt Pelor would grant spells to a wight-cleric. Though I would simply allow for this to be changed via role play.

Well... why couldn't they donate HP? I mean you could easily donate blood to a vampire and magic or long rests restore the life energy the wight drained out, energy is energy. If the party is turning people into wights for a combat boost then they're probably the kind of person to set up a well thought out life draining regimen.

[swrider]

Well... why couldn't they donate HP? I mean you could easily donate blood to a vampire and magic or long rests restore the life energy the wight drained out, energy is energy. If the party is turning people into wights for a combat boost then they're probably the kind of person to set up a well thought out life draining regimen.

In my mind it plays to the evil nature of wights. While in this case the player may not be evil, having to kill a sentient creature every couple of days will thematically drive them in that direction. Allowing the party to donate life defeats this purpose. Other DMs may allow the party to donate life, but that does not push the evil aspects of what is happening enough in my opinion. If the players really wanted it to work (which I would discourage in my game) I would make any life donated reduce the donating players Total HP until the next day.

[Lines]

In my mind it plays to the evil nature of wights. While in this case the player may not be evil, having to kill a sentient creature every couple of days will thematically drive them in that direction. Allowing the party to donate life defeats this purpose. Other DMs may allow the party to donate life, but that does not push the evil aspects of what is happening enough in my opinion. If the players really wanted it to work (which I would discourage in my game) I would make any life donated reduce the donating players Total HP until the next day.

It already does that. Any undead draining ability of a similar nature does, for wights the target constitution save or their hit point maximum is reduced until they take a long rest while for more powerful undead like vampires there's no save involved.

[swrider]

It already does that. Any undead draining ability of a similar nature does, they make a save or their hit point maximum is reduced until they take a long rest.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still relatively new to 5th edition. In this case I would not grant a saving through to avoid the HP max dropping.

[Lines]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still relatively new to 5th edition. In this case I would not grant a saving through to avoid the HP max dropping.

That's something of a buff to the player character, really. Anyways, it's to replace the level draining of yesteryear - instead of applying negative levels which reduces a bunch of stats by a certain amount and made you save at the end of the day for each one or lose a level for every failed save they simplified it by having them reduce max hp and adding effects like if max hp is reduced to 0 it comes back as an undead.

[Shining Wrath]

I don't see there are clear rules for this.

First, you have to cast it on a corpse. And an undead can't be raised, so you have done something unwholesome to the soul of your erstwhile friend. My houserule for undead is that they usually involve summoning an "animating spirit" from the plane of Shadow and binding it to the corpse. For higher level undead, the soul is still there, and the always-evil animating spirit torments and dominates said soul, which makes creating an undead out of a friend a pretty evil thing to do. A wight remembers it's former goals and desires? Yeah, by "beating" them out of the former occupant of the body.

As for what the character sheet for this abomination would look like, I think I'd be willing to average the MM stat block and the former PC stat block for physical stats and intelligence. For wisdom and charisma, you get the MM stat block, as the new spirit is "in charge". A wight created from a mighty fighter ought to be more formidable than one created from a commoner.

Level would be one, progression would be faster if the wight progressed in the same class the former owner of the body followed.

[Lines]

I don't see there are clear rules for this.
There are for the first part - turn friend into corpse, cast greater undead and make a wight, let the spell run out and now he's independent and still himself albeit with more desire to drain life force and less breathing than before. The bit without the clear rules is what comes next vis a vis class levels and XP.


First, you have to cast it on a corpse. And an undead can't be raised, so you have done something unwholesome to the soul of your erstwhile friend. My houserule for undead is that they usually involve summoning an "animating spirit" from the plane of Shadow and binding it to the corpse. For higher level undead, the soul is still there, and the always-evil animating spirit torments and dominates said soul, which makes creating an undead out of a friend a pretty evil thing to do. A wight remembers it's former goals and desires? Yeah, by "beating" them out of the former occupant of the body.

As for what the character sheet for this abomination would look like, I think I'd be willing to average the MM stat block and the former PC stat block for physical stats and intelligence. For wisdom and charisma, you get the MM stat block, as the new spirit is "in charge". A wight created from a mighty fighter ought to be more formidable than one created from a commoner.

Level would be one, progression would be faster if the wight progressed in the same class the former owner of the body followed.
Always interesting to see how different DMs make undeath work - I should really make a list and then have any given undead work like it does in the game of a random DM. This undead is an animating spirit from the plane of shadow, this undead clawed its way back from beyond the seventh gate, this undead is a normal person like you or me except powered by negative energy...

It'll confuse the hell out of the players.

[EvanescentHero]

I'm curious why you would blow an eighth-level spell slot (you can't get wights until you cast that spell in a level eight slot; until then it's just ghouls) when raise dead is a fifth-level spell and resurrection is a seventh-level spell.

But if a player really wanted to, and the dead PC's player also wanted to, I'd probably work with them to figure something out.

[CantigThimble]

I'm curious why you would blow an eighth-level spell slot (you can't get wights until you cast that spell in a level eight slot; until then it's just ghouls) when raise dead is a fifth-level spell and resurrection is a seventh-level spell.

But if a player really wanted to, and the dead PC's player also wanted to, I'd probably work with them to figure something out.

Possibly lack of diamonds or he's a wizard, or he just wants to be a wight for some reason.

[RickAllison]

After hearing all of this, I kind of want to play as a sapient undead. I could totally go with having to murder a few people. Even better, I can stage it so it will appear to one of the other party members that they were the ones who did it :smallwink:

[Segev]

After hearing all of this, I kind of want to play as a sapient undead. I could totally go with having to murder a few people. Even better, I can stage it so it will appear to one of the other party members that they were the ones who did it :smallwink:

That last part seems unwise; you want to point the finger of blame far from you, not right at your party.

[EvanescentHero]

Possibly lack of diamonds or he's a wizard, or he just wants to be a wight for some reason.

Wants to be a wight I can see, but by the time you can cast an eighth-level spell, you should be able to afford a cleric's fee!

[RickAllison]

That last part seems unwise; you want to point the finger of blame far from you, not right at your party.

That's true... Before, I had planned on killing off one of the characters because his and mine hadn't meshed well, which would have been great with this strategy. Unfortunately, we dropped his drunken frame on some green wyrmlings and our DM explicitly stated that he was going to die if we abandoned him. Guess what we did :smallwink:

[CaptAl]

I say, do what seems fun/cool. If it doesn't work out, well, maybe Orcus decides he doesn't like this free willed undead mucking up his plan.

[CantigThimble]

Wants to be a wight I can see, but by the time you can cast an eighth-level spell, you should be able to afford a cleric's fee!

Assuming you can find a cleric willing and able to raise you. High level clerics are not an everyday occurrence in some worlds.

[Waffle_Iron]

Speak with dead is indeed an example of a spell that specifically says it grants a semblance of intelligence instead of bringing the actual person back, just as the wight is the direct opposite. Observe the wording: 'its spirit is granted undeath so it can pursue its own malevolent agenda' .

I think this is a bit of key phrasing. The DMG notes that raise dead will not work on a spirit that resists, and I would rule the same for Create Undead.

My first question to the player would be along the lines of "is your agenda malevolent?" If the answer is no, the spell has already failed.

If yes, well, I don't allow evil PCs at my table, and the party has a new villain. And one who knows their secrets to boot.

[EvanescentHero]

Assuming you can find a cleric willing and able to raise you. High level clerics are not an everyday occurrence in some worlds.

Ah, that's also fair. I hadn't considered that!

[RickAllison]

I think this is a bit of key phrasing. The DMG notes that raise dead will not work on a spirit that resists, and I would rule the same for Create Undead.

My first question to the player would be along the lines of "is your agenda malevolent?" If the answer is no, the spell has already failed.

If yes, well, I don't allow evil PCs at my table, and the party has a new villain. And one who knows their secrets to boot.

But evil PCs are so much fun! Especially ones who seem fine, but Came Back Wrong (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CameBackWrong)

[Waffle_Iron]

But evil PCs are so much fun! Especially ones who seem fine, but Came Back Wrong (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CameBackWrong)

Evil PCs can be fun, if everyone knows that it can go that way, and has bought in at the beginning of the campaign. I find it to be disruptive if anyone at the table isn't keen on it, or doesn't have the expectation.

I don't want my players being upset. Their characters, fine. The players, not so much.

[Malifice]

Not the case, player characters don't need houserules to take class levels. They're always able to, it's the basis of the game - and wights 'possess the memories and drives of their past lives', so they keep their personality, and unlike vampires etc there's nothing mentioned about the DM taking control of the character.

The houseruly bit comes in when figuring out how to take class levels - the 'becomes an x' line could easily be interpreted to mean you lose your statblock and keep that of the creature, and there are no guidelines on where your XP is at at that point. Are you basically level 1? Hence me asking peoples opinions.

The PC is dead and you get a zombie or whatever the spell creates.

But rule it however you want.

[Lines]

Possibly lack of diamonds or he's a wizard, or he just wants to be a wight for some reason.

Decent stats, usable resistances, free multiattack for if you're a cleric or rogue, immunity to poison and exhaustion (fun times for a berserker), up to 12 non resource costing zombie minions, plus you keep your sense of self and are now immortal. What's not to love?


The PC is dead and you get a zombie or whatever the spell creates.

But rule it however you want.

In this instance a wight, an undead that maintains sense of self. The PC is not dead, it's undead, and that part works fine by the rules.

And it's ok, you're allowed to homebrew! That's fine, you can change how the game works all you want, just don't make changes and pretend they're the base game. You can rule it however you want if you're the DM, but don't flip it around and tell the one working by RAW that they're changing things.

[Lines]

I think this is a bit of key phrasing. The DMG notes that raise dead will not work on a spirit that resists, and I would rule the same for Create Undead.

My first question to the player would be along the lines of "is your agenda malevolent?" If the answer is no, the spell has already failed.

If yes, well, I don't allow evil PCs at my table, and the party has a new villain. And one who knows their secrets to boot.

Why do they have to have a malevolent agenda? Can't they just want to be immortal and/or stronger?


Evil PCs can be fun, if everyone knows that it can go that way, and has bought in at the beginning of the campaign. I find it to be disruptive if anyone at the table isn't keen on it, or doesn't have the expectation.

I don't want my players being upset. Their characters, fine. The players, not so much.

My main rule for this has always been that the players need to come up with a reason to be a group or let me provide one - if you're here, you need a reason to be at least initially. You don't need everyone to be evil if some players are, the evil characters just need a reason to co-operate.

It should also be noted it never specifically says a wight must be evil (unlike a vampire or someone embracing being a werewolf), almost certainly because for some reason they didn't think about players reanimating each other, but still - the description starts off calling them evil undead and goes on about some nasty tendencies, but as we've seen that doesn't mean you have to. The entry for orcs mentions half a dozen things orcs always do (never innovate, wage endless war, have a tribe that rarely holds a defensible lair) and then the sidebar goes and mentions king Obould Many-Arrows who acts nothing like that.

[CantigThimble]

In this instance a wight, an undead that maintains sense of self. The PC is not dead, it's undead, and that part works fine by the rules.

And it's ok, you're allowed to homebrew! That's fine, you can change how the game works all you want, just don't make changes and pretend they're the base game. You can rule it however you want if you're the DM, but don't flip it around and tell the one working by RAW that they're changing things.

Wait are wights and ghouls created only from homicidal maniacs in your world? Or are many of them mostly peaceful and afraid of themselves and what they've become? It seems like interpreting 'sense of self' to mean complete, unmodified previous personality with no downside besides needing a little bit of life energy (but not enough to actually kill anyone) might be a bit liberal considering what these things are supposed to be like.

[Lines]

Wait are wights and ghouls created only from homicidal maniacs in your world? Or are many of them mostly peaceful and afraid of themselves and what they've become? It seems like interpreting 'sense of self' to mean complete, unmodified previous personality with no downside besides needing a little bit of life energy (but not enough to actually kill anyone) might be a bit liberal considering what these things are supposed to be like.

Why would you need to kill anyone? You can easily drain ten commoners worth of energy from your party and have them take a long rest, far more than it would take to kill most people but basically nothing for them. And not sure about homicidal maniacs, but the wight entry makes clear they're usually created by nasty people crying out to dark gods with their last breath and swearing service in a war against the living in exchange - so yeah, it looks pretty clear that wights are terrible people because they're made out of terrible people.

Create undead however bypasses the whole dark god/terrible person thing and is instead wizard/any humanoid. The person's not gonna be unchanged, no hormones sloshing around nor any need to eat or breathe and a brand new desire to feed on life force, but that doesn't mean you can't just not drain any (you want it, you aren't sustained by it though) or just drain bad guys/willing party members who can immediately restore any damage done and then go do some good with your new bonuses.

[Malifice]

In this instance a wight, an undead that maintains sense of self.

It remembers fragments of its past life. No mention of skills, class levels or proficiencies.


The PC is not dead, it's undead, and that part works fine by the rules.

As you interpret them.


And it's ok, you're allowed to homebrew! That's fine, you can change how the game works all you want, just don't make changes and pretend they're the base game. You can rule it however you want if you're the DM, but don't flip it around and tell the one working by RAW that they're changing things.

Can you point me to the RAW where it states wights retain the class levels they had in the past?

[soldersbushwack]

I think this is a bit of key phrasing. The DMG notes that raise dead will not work on a spirit that resists, and I would rule the same for Create Undead.

My first question to the player would be along the lines of "is your agenda malevolent?" If the answer is no, the spell has already failed.

If yes, well, I don't allow evil PCs at my table, and the party has a new villain. And one who knows their secrets to boot.

This is not typical for traditional fantasy. In particular, in LotR (which Gary Gygax based original D&D heavily off of) wightification does not seem to be easily resistable. Perhaps a Paladin or some other exceptional individual could resist the effects of Create Undead though.


My houserule for undead is that they usually involve summoning an "animating spirit" from the plane of Shadow and binding it to the corpse.

Oddly, though the fluff in D&D in times sort of leans that direction there aren't any entries in the Monster Manual for spirits like that. D&D also has similar ideas in the fluff for various golems but is sort of inconsistent with them. Here is my sort of home-brew take on the fluff.

Souls and spirits are composed of energies of the various planes. Most life on the material plane have bodies composed of the four elements (substances of the four elemental planes) and souls composed of energies from the outer planes. These souls are most strongly formed from positive energy (the substance of the positive energy plane.)

Golems and simple undead are animated via the energies of the planes. A fire elemental is not enslaved to animate an iron golem. A malevolent entity from the negative energy plane is not bound to a corpse to create a zombie. Rather, a bundle of energy from the plane of fire is drawn together to create an animating spirit for an iron golem. Likewise, a bundle of energy from the plane of negative energy is drawn together to create an animating spirit for a zombie..

Making an intelligent creature an intelligent undead then consists of replacing most of the positive energy of the creature's soul with negative energy instead. As most of the soul is mostly replaced, the resulting creature is then mostly a different creature. I should note that this an entirely separate topic from whether or not such a creature would be evil or good. I haven't come up with a good idea to explain why souls mostly composed of negative energy should typically be evil. I guess negative energy somehow more strongly resonates with energy from the planes of evil then the planes of good?

[Lines]

It remembers fragments of its past life. No mention of skills, class levels or proficiencies.
No mention of losing them, either. The class levels part has no rules, asking people their opinions on that part has been most of the point of this thread.


As you interpret them.

Show me any part of that interpretation that isn't correct.


Can you point me to the RAW where it states wights retain the class levels they had in the past?

Yeah, sure. Let me link exactly to the part where that's spelled out:


there are no rules regarding if it keeps its class level or where it starts from in terms of taking class levels if it doesn't.

[Lines]

Making an intelligent creature an intelligent undead then consists of replacing most of the positive energy of the creature's soul with negative energy instead. As most of the soul is mostly replaced, the resulting creature is then mostly a different creature. I should note that this an entirely separate topic from whether or not such a creature would be evil or good. I haven't come up with a good idea to explain why souls mostly composed of negative energy should typically be evil. I guess negative energy somehow more strongly resonates with energy from the planes of evil then the planes of good?

Can't say for certain in 5e - especially since positive and negative energy doesn't really seem to exist any more, just radiant and necrotic damage. But it's not the soul, it's the body - a body needs energy of some kind to keep going. 3.5 wise a living body is partially powered by positive energy though mostly by eating, so they can still for instance overload on positive energy and explode since they don't absorb it perfectly. An undead is powered entirely by negative energy so any amount heals them and it replaces other physiological needs, though in some cases certain things like blood need to be consumed as well.

They aren't innately evil, it's must most paths to undeath turn you into something evil so on average, undeath is evil - but for instance necropolitan is basically just the normal person except they're undead now. That's how it was in 3.5, not sure how much is different in 5e, though I know being a lich went from a good way to stay alive forever if you're a spellcaster to innately evil due to needing to drain souls, though I guess they could get around that by only doing it to devils or something.

[EvanescentHero]

Yeah, sure. Let me link exactly to the part where that's spelled out:

So, in other words, no.

Don't make up rules where there are none and then claim you're following the rules as written. There are no written rules to follow, so claiming RAW is disingenuous.

[RickAllison]

So, in other words, no.

Don't make up rules where there are none and then claim you're following the rules as written. There are no written rules to follow, so claiming RAW is disingenuous.

Indeed. The closest thing we have to "RAW" is the lack of any class stats on wights. This is in contrast to the Flameskull, Death Knight, Lich (but not Demilich), Mummy Lords, Bone Naga, and variant Vampires. Now, this isn't exactly the most compelling argument, but is the closest thing to one for either side by RAW. If they were intended to retain class levels, it is quite possible (I hesitate to use terms such as likely) that they were intended to be classless at least to start. Both the Bone Naga and Flameskull are around its CR, so it is not simply something omitted due to lower levels. Admittedly, it is more difficult to judge whether a given creature could have Fighter levels.

[CantigThimble]

So, in other words, no.

Don't make up rules where there are none and then claim you're following the rules as written. There are no written rules to follow, so claiming RAW is disingenuous.

I suppose by pure RAW assuming the whole 'sense of self' = complete uncorrupted personality (which I do not agree with) then a PC raised as a wight would be a wight. Monsters RAW don't gain levels so it would just work like polymorphing someone. They would use a wight's stats, including mental scores like with true polymorph since this is a permanent effect, for everything and those stats would never change.

[Lines]

So, in other words, no.
Hey, so let me rephrase how this has gone:

Me: What do you think happens when x? Do you think w, or y, or maybe z?

Malifice: Can you link me to the part in the rules where it states that y happens with x?

Me: Sure, let me just link you to the bit where I've stated several times that the rules don't cover this part

You: So, in other words, no.

Is there a word or phrase to describe this? When you start off by saying you don't have an answer, someone picks an answer for you then demands that you show them how that answer is correct and then somebody else is all like 'ha, looks like you couldn't prove that point you never made' - please find the word that describes the second and third person in that scenario and then try your hardest to never have that word describe you again, because it's not a good look.


Don't make up rules where there are none and then claim you're following the rules as written. There are no written rules to follow, so claiming RAW is disingenuous.
I didn't? The RAW bit is the player coming back as a wight - that's the entire point of the spell, after all. I've never claimed there's a rules correct interpretation for what happens regarding class and XP because the are no rules for covering it.

Again, find out what the word for this is and then never let it describe you again.

[RickAllison]

I suppose by pure RAW assuming the whole 'sense of self' = complete uncorrupted personality (which I do not agree with) then a PC raised as a wight would be a wight. Monsters RAW don't gain levels so it would just work like polymorphing someone. They would use a wight's stats, including mental scores like with true polymorph since this is a permanent effect, for everything and those stats would never change.

Can you point me to where it says that monsters cannot gain levels by RAW? This is a legitimate request, not to be snarky. By the DMG (p. 283), they can get class levels. It talks specifically about giving a werewolf four levels of barbarian and then follows it with the rules about how to adjust the character to coincide with those levels (no starting equipment; gains hit dice based on size, not class; proficiency is based on CR, not level). So by that section, it might be uncommon but certainly can gain levels.

EDIT: Lines, keep it civil, please. This should be a friendly discussion. Also, he would get the basic Wight statblock (exactly as if he used True Polymorph). It would be a decent jumping off point for Paladin to my eyes.

[Lines]

Indeed. The closest thing we have to "RAW" is the lack of any class stats on wights. This is in contrast to the Flameskull, Death Knight, Lich (but not Demilich), Mummy Lords, Bone Naga, and variant Vampires. Now, this isn't exactly the most compelling argument, but is the closest thing to one for either side by RAW. If they were intended to retain class levels, it is quite possible (I hesitate to use terms such as likely) that they were intended to be classless at least to start. Both the Bone Naga and Flameskull are around its CR, so it is not simply something omitted due to lower levels. Admittedly, it is more difficult to judge whether a given creature could have Fighter levels.

I'm mildly confused. What are class stats in this context?

[RickAllison]

I'm mildly confused. What are class stats in this context?

Anything that can tie the actual monster statblocks to class levels. Primarily the Spellcasting trait, as that is gained from leveling up in classes and not as an innate function of the monster (though that is a big debate on the True Polymorph discussion...). That's why it is hard to use it as a benchmark because while Spellcasting is easy to identify, Fighter traits are much less so.

[PoeticDwarf]

Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean create undead? And more specific about what?


Yes, and when you cast create undead on it it becomes a wight. One that 'possess the memories and drives of its formerly living self'. Formerly living self doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, it specifically states the self remains.

The DM is free to change how things work, observe the vampire Durkon in the comics not being like how vampires work in 3.5, but as it is if you cast create undead and turn a party member into a wight they stay the same person, just reanimated with a hunger for the essence of the living. Which is quite a change to be sure, but it's still definitely the same person.

I meant create undead and because it is more specific what happens this happens

Now the story changes, you never said the PC stayed a PC

[CantigThimble]

Can you point me to where it says that monsters cannot gain levels by RAW? This is a legitimate request, not to be snarky. By the DMG (p. 283), they can get class levels. It talks specifically about giving a werewolf four levels of barbarian and then follows it with the rules about how to adjust the character to coincide with those levels (no starting equipment; gains hit dice based on size, not class; proficiency is based on CR, not level). So by that section, it might be uncommon but certainly can gain levels.

I'm AFB right now but I would guess that's a custom monster creation guideline rather than a definitive explanation of what happens when a monster defeats 300xp worth of enemies. True polymorph completely overwrites all previous abilities and doesn't include any clauses for new levels to be gained. I wouldn't expect someone polymorphed into a frog to start gaining levels in sorcerer again by default. Same reasoning applies here. Nothing explicitly allows giant apes or wights to gain levels so they don't.

[Lines]

I'm AFB right now but I would guess that's a custom monster creation guideline rather than a definitive explanation of what happens when a monster defeats 300xp worth of enemies. True polymorph completely overwrites all previous abilities and doesn't include any clauses for new levels to be gained. I wouldn't expect someone polymorphed into a frog to start gaining levels in sorcerer again by default. Same reasoning applies here. Nothing explicitly allows giant apes or wights to gain levels so they don't.

I'm very confused, why would nothing explicitly stopping them getting XP mean they don't? It doesn't include any clauses for new levels to be gained but it similarly doesn't include any clauses precluding the gain of new levels - this is a grey area with no information given one way or another except for a guideline for monsters gaining levels in the DMG and the fact that previously you could earn levels and XP and there is nothing that says you have lost this ability. How does a grey area with no indications you can't and two very slight indications you can equal 'you definitely can't'?


I meant create undead and because it is more specific what happens this happens

Now the story changes, you never said the PC stayed a PC
Of course it stays a PC. There are instances in the game where the DM may take control of your character and this is not one of them. At what point has my story changed?

[RickAllison]

I'm AFB right now but I would guess that's a custom monster creation guideline rather than a definitive explanation of what happens when a monster defeats 300xp worth of enemies. True polymorph completely overwrites all previous abilities and doesn't include any clauses for new levels to be gained. I wouldn't expect someone polymorphed into a frog to start gaining levels in sorcerer again by default. Same reasoning applies here. Nothing explicitly allows giant apes or wights to gain levels so they don't.

They do not cover XP gains, but that is not a compelling argument. Why restate XP rules when they have already been clarified in another portion of the RAW? We are agreed that TP removes all abilities (including class levels), but it does not forbid gaining new ones either; thus, there is equal argument for why they are able to. A frog is unlikely to be able to gain those levels purely because he has to gain Sorcerer 1 which would require Charisma 13 where the frog only has 3; a PC can skip this requirement in its first class presumably because they have received extensive training that bypassed the standard need and so a frog that spent 10 years training to hone his sorcerer powers might be able to if he was intelligent enough to follow that (EDIT: doubtful, as they have Int 1, which I think does make them ineligible for classes since they are below PC minimum). The DMG gives pretty explicit rules for how to govern monsters gaining class levels (specifically adding them to existing creatures; they actually don't address applying them to custom monsters), so the final argument is actually wrong. They do explicitly have rules for gaining class levels as animals.

[CantigThimble]

PCs can gain class levels. Monsters use innate abilities in their statblocks rather than class levels. MM priests don't have levels in cleric, just abilities. Dragons aren't also 20th level monks even though if they gained XP like players do they definitely could be. Part of true polymorph replaces everything in your statblock with the monster's stats and abilities. A level 20 barbarian polymorphed into a mage can cast cone of cold but not fly into a rage. This leads me to believe the ability to gain class levels is replaced by the innate monster abilities. There may be some rules in the DMG regarding this but if it's in the DMG then it's entirely up to the DM if it applies and how it applies by default, just like everything else in there. The PHB is all players can take for granted.

Edit: Like I mentioned, AFB so it is entirely possible I'm missing something.

[Malifice]

Yeah, sure. Let me link exactly to the part where that's spelled out:

Thats not how rules work. You're drawing an implication from the absence of a rule.

[RickAllison]

PCs can gain class levels. Monsters use innate abilities in their statblocks rather than class levels. MM priests don't have levels in cleric, just abilities. Dragons aren't also 20th level monks even though if they gained XP like players do they definitely could be. Part of true polymorph replaces everything in your statblock with the monster's stats and abilities. A level 20 barbarian polymorphed into a mage can cast cone of cold but not fly into a rage. This leads me to believe the ability to gain class levels is replaced by the innate monster abilities. There may be some rules in the DMG regarding this but if it's in the DMG then it's entirely up to the DM if it applies and how it applies by default, just like everything else in there.

Absolutely it is up to the DM. However, just because it requires DM approval does not mean it is not RAW. Many statblocks do cover creatures that in-world have class levels, but do not in the MM for simplicity's sake (as I pointed out, this makes it hard to tell exactly which creatures have anything resembling class levels excepting the Spellcasting trait). Allowing it leads to all sorts of abuse, but that is at the same level where wizards can not only warp reality using Wish, but embark on quests to gain the power to do it twice per day. However, a rule being available for abuse does not preclude it being a rule. RAW, he can gain levels as a monster, but a DM has absolute freedom to disallow that rule at his/her table. That does not change that the rule does exist.

EDIT: Malifice, the absence of the rule is the entire point of this debate. Though he approached it in a rather rude fashion, he was indicating that there was no rule overriding the default rule that PCs can gain levels. From the specific v. general perspective, the general rule is that the PC can gain levels. Until a specific rule appears that overrides the general rule (or the general rule assumption is shown to be incorrect), he has a point despite the brutish manner it was presented in.

[CantigThimble]

Absolutely it is up to the DM. However, just because it requires DM approval does not mean it is not RAW. Many statblocks do cover creatures that in-world have class levels, but do not in the MM for simplicity's sake (as I pointed out, this makes it hard to tell exactly which creatures have anything resembling class levels excepting the Spellcasting trait). Allowing it leads to all sorts of abuse, but that is at the same level where wizards can not only warp reality using Wish, but embark on quests to gain the power to do it twice per day. However, a rule being available for abuse does not preclude it being a rule. RAW, he can gain levels as a monster, but a DM has absolute freedom to disallow that rule at his/her table. That does not change that the rule does exist.

I'm not talking about a DM homebrewing it out of the game, I'm saying the entire DMG consists of non-default optional inclusions that a DM can use if they want but should not be assumed to be included by players.

[RickAllison]

I'm not talking about a DM homebrewing it out of the game, I'm saying the entire DMG consists of non-default optional inclusions that a DM can use if they want but should not be assumed to be included by players.

Indeed. They present gaining classes in a form that is easy for the DM to manipulate and keep track of. In the absence of that rule, a houserule adding its own restriction, or a rule in either the MM or PHB prohibiting the gaining of class levels as a monster, it appears that a person in the new form would just gain levels as they would in a PC race so long as the monster was capable (so Giant Ape could take levels as Barbarian, but not a Wizard; in truth, he would actually have a higher INT than some of the Barbs I've seen...). That is the general rule, and a specific rule would need to trump it. Do you have a specific rule in either the Monster Manual or Player Handbook that supports your side? If not, the general rule stands.

[CantigThimble]

Indeed. They present gaining classes in a form that is easy for the DM to manipulate and keep track of. In the absence of that rule, a houserule adding its own restriction, or a rule in either the MM or PHB prohibiting the gaining of class levels as a monster, it appears that a person in the new form would just gain levels as they would in a PC race so long as the monster was capable (so Giant Ape could take levels as Barbarian, but not a Wizard; in truth, he would actually have a higher INT than some of the Barbs I've seen...). That is the general rule, and a specific rule would need to trump it. Do you have a specific rule in either the Monster Manual or Player Handbook that supports your side? If not, the general rule stands.

Wait, why do you think the multiclassing requirements apply?

[pwykersotz]

I'd allow it under certain circumstances/games. I'd have the Wight already have exp as a 5th level character with a new level cap of 15 (so equivalent of 20). Multiattack would overlap with Extra Attack feature if the class taken provided it.

As for the RP, I'd have them stick to this guideline from the MM:
Neither dead nor alive, a wight exists in a transitional state between one world and the next. The bright spark it possessed in life is gone, and in its place is a yearning to consume that spark in all living things.

So at best it would be an Angel/Angelus sort of thing.

[RickAllison]

Wait, why do you think the multiclassing requirements apply?

First line of Prerequisites under Multiclassing, p. 163 of the PHB:


To qualify for a new class, you must meet the ability score
prerequisites for both your current class and your new
one.

You don't need the meet the prerequisites to multiclass, you need it to qualify for a new class. For the beasts with the low Intelligence, they do not meet the ability score prerequisites for the new class. The question that should pop up is how does a PC who does not start with sufficient scores get his first class level?

[PoeticDwarf]

Of course it stays a PC. There are instances in the game where the DM may take control of your character and this is not one of them. At what point has my story changed?

You just said corpse of PC not PC, and because this undead is under control of his/her master s/he can't do anything s/he wants so every reasonable DM will let you then make a new character...

Not, of course it stays a PC, I hope you mean of course not

[CantigThimble]

First line of Prerequisites under Multiclassing, p. 163 of the PHB:

You don't need the meet the prerequisites to multiclass, you need it to qualify for a new class. For the beasts with the low Intelligence, they do not meet the ability score prerequisites for the new class. The question that should pop up is how does a PC who does not start with sufficient scores get his first class level?

That sentence is in the section of prerequisites for multiclassing. A player who is taking their first level in a class does not need to meet that requirement because he is not multiclassing so he doesn't need to read prerequisites for optional rules that don't matter at level 1. Which is why those requirements are not brought up during the character creation section, only the multiclassing section.

[Lines]

You just said corpse of PC not PC, and because this undead is under control of his/her master s/he can't do anything s/he wants so every reasonable DM will let you then make a new character...

Not, of course it stays a PC, I hope you mean of course not

No, why would I mean that? The control runs out after a day, you're back to being your old self if slightly less fond of the sun than you were.

Corpse of PC wise, that must be why you have to roll a new character if the cleric uses raise dead on your corpse.

[RickAllison]

That sentence is in the section of prerequisites for multiclassing. A player who is taking their first level in a class does not need to meet that requirement because he is not multiclassing so he doesn't need to read prerequisites for optional rules that don't matter at level 1. Which is why those requirements are not brought up during the character creation section, only the multiclassing section.

Though it's in the section of Multiclassing, the language is specifically about taking a new class. If specifically saying "To qualify for a new class" is not strong enough for you, then fine. In that case, a frog can become a wizard. By all rules of language, that sentence should apply to taking a new class in any form, but I will accept that language shortcuts sometimes are taken in the book.

EDIT: In character generation, the PC is not taking a new class. They have a class they were in before the story occurred. If they began as level 0 characters, then by virtue of that sentence they would need to meet the prerequisite for the class they are MCing into and from (aka the PC class and the non-existent class that creatures without levels fall into). That is my ruling for a very specific and odd circumstance, but I suppose that is exactly what is under debate.

[CantigThimble]

Though it's in the section of Multiclassing, the language is specifically about taking a new class. If specifically saying "To qualify for a new class" is not strong enough for you, then fine. In that case, a frog can become a wizard. By all rules of language, that sentence should apply to taking a new class in any form, but I will accept that language shortcuts sometimes are taken in the book.

I'm just saying, disregarding the context of the section to exclusively look at the language is kinda like saying I should take this:

"When the cloud appears, each creature in it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 10d8 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."

from incendiary cloud and then apply it to every spell involving a cloud because it doesn't specify that the cloud is the 'Incendiary Cloud' in that particular sentence.

[RickAllison]

I'm just saying, disregarding the context of the section to exclusively look at the language is kinda like saying I should take this:

"When the cloud appears, each creature in it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 10d8 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."

from incendiary cloud and then apply it to every spell involving a cloud because it doesn't specify that the cloud is the 'Incendiary Cloud' in that particular sentence.

I added an addendum that you successfully ninja'd. By what I see, the rule still applies because you are multiclassing from null class to whatever the level 1 class is. I guess I could say that's the creature class? Basically, it is the undefined class that all creatures would be part of. That, however, is just me trying to make sense of odd rulings. Like I said, if you interpret that as only applying after the first level, then fine. Having a wizard with INT 1 is odd, but I would get a few chuckles out of it.

[Lines]

Thats not how rules work. You're drawing an implication from the absence of a rule.

And you're drawing a negative from the absence of a positive. A thing must be either proven or disproven - if it is not something you can do, you can't draw an implication that you can do it from the absence of a rule stating that you can. This is correct! Good on you for getting the first part right, buddy. The second part to this is that it works the other way around for things that are already the case. You're saying that I can't do a thing I was already able to do and putting the burden of proof on me, which is not how that works.

A couple of side notes here - I still don't think there's enough to judge either way regarding XP and classes once you're undead. They should have included rules but didn't, so it's up to the DM to decide what the rules are, but no negatives and a couple of slight positives when the burden of proof is on there being a strong negative does not an open and shut case make. Side note the second is stop setting up arbitrary goals and assigning them to me, like asking me to link you to the part of the rules where something is spelled out in response to me saying that nothing is spelled out.

[CantigThimble]

I added an addendum that you successfully ninja'd. By what I see, the rule still applies because you are multiclassing from null class to whatever the level 1 class is. I guess I could say that's the creature class? Basically, it is the undefined class that all creatures would be part of. That, however, is just me trying to make sense of odd rulings. Like I said, if you interpret that as only applying after the first level, then fine. Having a wizard with INT 1 is odd, but I would get a few chuckles out of it.

A creature's hit dice counting as a class for the purposes of taking class levels is a reason I can get behind a lot better. (whether or not it's precisely RAW or not)

And If you remember the ability score generation thread I had a brilliant plan for my 1 int wizard. :smallbiggrin: (I really oughta play 'One Page Spellbook' in something)

[Lines]

Anything that can tie the actual monster statblocks to class levels. Primarily the Spellcasting trait, as that is gained from leveling up in classes and not as an innate function of the monster (though that is a big debate on the True Polymorph discussion...). That's why it is hard to use it as a benchmark because while Spellcasting is easy to identify, Fighter traits are much less so.

Oh, ok. I'll be helpful and clarify, nothing in the monster manual has any class levels. Yes, spellcasting is an innate function of the monster, you can tell because it's on the monster's statblock - spellcasting is no less part of an archmage than parry is for a bandit captain. Many though not all spellcasters in the MM draw their spells from a specific class's spell list, though it should be noted that so do some classes - it's not like eldritch knight has its own spell list, it draws from the wizard.

In any case, having abilities similar or identical to those a class has does not mean a monster has that class - as you'll notice that though some monsters share abilities, no monster shares all the abilities a class has.

[RickAllison]

A creature's hit dice counting as a class for the purposes of taking class levels is a reason I can get behind a lot better. (whether or not it's precisely RAW or not)

And If you remember the ability score generation thread I had a brilliant plan for my 1 int wizard. :smallbiggrin: (I really oughta play 'One Page Spellbook' in something)

The main issue I see with that is how inconsistent that becomes. As an example for CR 1/2 monsters (you would think CR would be a decent estimator...), hit dice range from 2 for orcs and magmin to 7 for satyrs and hit every die in the middle. By the hit dice logic, demilichs, death slaads, iron golems, storm giants, and ancient copper dragons. That would mean level 20 ranges from CR 10 up to CR 21.

EDIT: Lines, I never stated that those had levels. I explicitly said I was looking for things to tie them to levels. I am well aware that none of monster statblocks have classes (else the True Polymorph debate would be much simpler), but that doesn't mean they don't correlate back to classes. In this case, it was specifically deconstructing other intelligent undead to compare them back to the wight to see if there existed any precedent in the wight statblock for it to retain class levels as that was still under debate. The idea being that if there was no precedent, it would at least clarify that aspect of the debate. It was evaluating the statblocks from a design standpoint, not strictly crunch. Don't be condescending and assume you are more cognizant of the rules than other posters.

[Lines]

The main issue I see with that is how inconsistent that becomes. As an example for CR 1/2 monsters (you would think CR would be a decent estimator...), hit dice range from 2 for orcs and magmin to 7 for satyrs and hit every die in the middle. By the hit dice logic, demilichs, death slaads, iron golems, storm giants, and ancient copper dragons. That would mean level 20 ranges from CR 10 up to CR 21.

Hit dice have been completely divorced from CR for ages now. 3.5's way of doing it was every hit die counts as a level (so if you have 7 hit dice of ambush drake and take your first class level you're an ambush drake 7/totemist 1 who counts as level 8 and will need the normal xp to get to 9) and having additional level adjustment increase your effective level if the base creature was strong enough to warrant it.

5e wise, it seems like the appropriate solution would be to figure out what effective level the traits and actions would be appropriate for, lets say 3 for an orc eye of Gruumsh and reduce their hit dice to that amount then let them take classes as normal, letting spellcasting stack if they cast off a class's spell list (so an eye of gruumsh 3/cleric 2 would cast as a cleric 5). They may not technically have class levels, but it seems close enough that that would be fair.

[Malifice]

{scrubbed}

[Lines]

{scrubbed}

You keep ignoring what I'm saying, putting words in my mouth and have just declared everything invalid because apparently I'm trolling. You do know that's not how discussions work, right?

[OldTrees1]

{scrubbed}

[Lines]

{scrubbed}

What the hell does that have to do with it? I asked about peoples interpretations about what would happen regarding class levels once the party member became undead, and he insisted on focusing on focusing on the actual reanimation part which is pretty easily answered RAW and it not the subject for this thread, but people seemed interested so I discussed it. I have stated so many times that there is no RAW answer for what happens with class levels, it's why I made the thread - in the absence of RAW, canvassing community opinion is pretty fun.

What the flying **** does discussing RAW on something tangentially related to the thread have to do with asking for non RAW answers on the main topic of the thread? And for that matter, exactly what got bungled here?

[Vogonjeltz]

Yes, and when you cast create undead on it it becomes a wight. One that 'possess the memories and drives of its formerly living self'. Formerly living self doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, it specifically states the self remains.

Away from book, but if it is as you stated, then no, it's a recording of the self that was, it's not the same.

i.e. If you were to replicate a person's memories and drives onto a computer, it would be a facsimile, but it would in no way be the same person. If the person dies at that point...they're still dead.

Characters in D&D have souls, whereever the soul goes, so goes the player character.

[Lines]

Away from book, but if it is as you stated, then no, it's a recording of the self that was, it's not the same.

i.e. If you were to replicate a person's memories and drives onto a computer, it would be a facsimile, but it would in no way be the same person. If the person dies at that point...they're still dead.

Characters in D&D have souls, whereever the soul goes, so goes the player character.

'its spirit cries out to the demon lord orcus or some other dark deity'... the soul stays exactly where it is, so it's still a player character. It's not moving their memories and drives anywhere, they're staying right where they are.

[PoeticDwarf]

No, why would I mean that? The control runs out after a day, you're back to being your old self if slightly less fond of the sun than you were.

Corpse of PC wise, that must be why you have to roll a new character if the cleric uses raise dead on your corpse.

Almost everyone will recast it, and if they become free STIL most Dms will make a new character. Without a note like the PC still plays this character I just didn't understand what you mean.

[kaoskonfety]

*snip* They should have included rules but didn't, *snip*

This I will have to quietly disagree with. The omission of "ECL" or similar from 3rd was clearly rather deliberate and was far from a mistake. The Arrokaa stat block in the MM only bears a passing resemblance to the PC race. The part where the players can be monsters has been clearly removed as it is not an intended part of core play, even when you can play said monsters.

The DM may allow a player to continue driving the given wight as their Player Character (but slightly different). They are under no obligation to do so. I'd allow it if everyone involved was cool with it (everyone at the table, including me, but especially the affected player and the necromancer).

The DM may allow the player to retain their class levels and continue to advance with the monsters power replacing their base PC's racial traits with "is a wight". I would not allow this unless it was part of the core game premise (some sort of staring into the Abyss and it stares back thing). It too quickly devolves into an all lich party or similar wacky abuse.

Homebrewing an ECL system might be a middle ground but feels like way more work than it would be worth and while I might manage to eyeball it fairly well the core rules are very "keep it simple" and this would not be easily streamlined in.

In short: The option to play as a monster is gone from the core rules, and I don't miss it.

[Lines]

Almost everyone will recast it, and if they become free STIL most Dms will make a new character. Without a note like the PC still plays this character I just didn't understand what you mean.

Why would they recast it? I'm not saying no groups have animosity, but from my experience people tend to trust their party members. Why would you agree to have your party necromancer turn you into a wight if you didn't trust him to release you?

[Logosloki]

Short answer for me is they become a ghoul. They have 24 hours at the whim of the person who raised them and then they are a normal party member if they choose to be, or they can NPC themselves and draw up something new.

The price for becoming a ghoul is their next level (example: Fighter 11/Ghoul) . I would still ask for them to write up what they would have leveled up if they were leveling up normally, that way if they wish to de-ghoul they will come out as normal (example: Fighter 11/Ghoul to Fighter 12 or Fighter 11/normal class 1).

The price for advancing as a ghoul to a ghast is one level and from ghast to wight is one level. No further advances within this line so ultimately a player could become Class (or mix of classes) 17/Wight.



As to playing as undead (outside of trying to cleave close to the rules)

UNDEAD (conditions: Must have been killed and resurrected through create dead, must have a trinket that is bound inside your body, which acts as a crude supplementary link between your body and soul. you must give up one level for this. you may write down what you normally would have taken for this level, which will replace the level taken if you relive yourself of undeath).

You are dead, or were. You can move, you can sort of talk but you don't seem to move very well, you feel...you can't feel. After some training you got over the lack of feeling and are up to adventuring again. Now you just have to try and un-live for as long as you can - either to find a cure or so you don't end up as a smite-kebab.

You gain the subtype Undead. This means anything that affects undead affects you.
You no longer have to eat, drink, breath or sleep.
You are immune to Poison, Poisoned, Exhaustion, and Charm.
Your unliving status gives you access to deathspeech. Deathspeech is not language but a state of unbeing where you commune with those who are actually dead. You gain use of the spell Speak with the Dead. You must complete a long rest before you can use this ability again.
Your body slowly decays. If you remain undead up to a year you become a skeleton, losing the ability to talk. Restoring the flesh through greater restoration resets this decay.

[Lines]

This I will have to quietly disagree with. The omission of "ECL" or similar from 3rd was clearly rather deliberate and was far from a mistake. The Arrokaa stat block in the MM only bears a passing resemblance to the PC race. The part where the players can be monsters has been clearly removed as it is not an intended part of core play, even when you can play said monsters.

The DM may allow a player to continue driving the given wight as their Player Character (but slightly different). They are under no obligation to do so. I'd allow it if everyone involved was cool with it (everyone at the table, including me, but especially the affected player and the necromancer).

The DM may allow the player to retain their class levels and continue to advance with the monsters power replacing their base PC's racial traits with "is a wight". I would not allow this unless it was part of the core game premise (some sort of staring into the Abyss and it stares back thing). It too quickly devolves into an all lich party or similar wacky abuse.

Homebrewing an ECL system might be a middle ground but feels like way more work than it would be worth and while I might manage to eyeball it fairly well the core rules are very "keep it simple" and this would not be easily streamlined in.

In short: The option to play as a monster is gone from the core rules, and I don't miss it.

We're not actually disagreeing about anything. I'm glad we had 3.5's ECL system, but it wasn't actually very well done or balanced and they would have needed to do a lot of work to make it work in 5e, which they chose not to in the name of simplicity - they've cut some things I think the edition really could have done with for simplicity's sake, but an ECL style system is not one of them. It could have worked with a lot of care and effort put into it but it would have been a silly risk to take in an edition trying to be as simple as possible, it would end up being a line on every monster entry that most people wouldn't use at best and everyone would hate at worst.

What I object to is in a 300+ page DMG that includes separate tables for random noises, smells and airs there wasn't a page or sidebar entitled 'monsters as PCs' that dealt with things like gaining class levels after polymorphed or raised from the dead or gave guidelines for appropriate balance when letting players start as things from the monster manual. It didn't need to be part of the core rules, you're right, but doesn't it seem like a more useful addition to the DMG than two entire pages of random furnishings and utensils?

[OldTrees1]

What the hell does that have to do with it? I asked about peoples interpretations about what would happen regarding class levels once the party member became undead, and he insisted on focusing on focusing on the actual reanimation part which is pretty easily answered RAW and it not the subject for this thread, but people seemed interested so I discussed it. I have stated so many times that there is no RAW answer for what happens with class levels, it's why I made the thread - in the absence of RAW, canvassing community opinion is pretty fun.

What the flying **** does discussing RAW on something tangentially related to the thread have to do with asking for non RAW answers on the main topic of the thread? And for that matter, exactly what got bungled here?

Because forum goers are not perfectly rational nor perfect translation machines, they (as a group) can behave irrationally when given certain inputs. Since you were asking about non RAW answers but were most frequently talking about a RAW argument, the thread has a tendency to bend away from your question and towards the RAW argument. That's what I called bungled (your goal for the thread and the path the thread is taking being quite different).

But it is your thread so only you can judge if I am accurate in my statement that the RAW argument is detracting from your non RAW question.

[Lines]

Because forum goers are not perfectly rational nor perfect translation machines, they (as a group) can behave irrationally when given certain inputs. Since you were asking about non RAW answers but were most frequently talking about a RAW argument, the thread has a tendency to bend away from your question and towards the RAW argument. That's what I called bungled (your goal for the thread and the path the thread is taking being quite different).

But it is your thread so only you can judge if I am accurate in my statement that the RAW argument is detracting from your non RAW question.

No, your judgment is correct regarding the RAW arguing - we just have differing opinions regarding whether that's bungling or not. If I'm at dinner with my (quite racist) grandfather and I say something about, for instance, the US president and he starts going on a horrible tirade, I didn't bungle the conversation, he did. Even if I knew he would, which in the instance of this thread I did not, I'm still not the one making a mistake.

[RickAllison]

No, your judgment is correct regarding the RAW arguing - we just have differing opinions regarding whether that's bungling or not. If I'm at dinner with my (quite racist) grandfather and I say something about, for instance, the US president and he starts going on a horrible tirade, I didn't bungle the conversation. He did. Even if I knew he would, which in the instance of this thread I did not, I'm still not the one making a mistake.

Well, if you knew that inciting your racist grandfather with talk of the president was going to result in that outcome, then you kind of did bungle it (not as much as the grandfather, but you still have fault). Not applicable in the forum situation, but it is in the example.

[Lines]

Well, if you knew that inciting your racist grandfather with talk of the president was going to result in that outcome, then you kind of did bungle it (not as much as the grandfather, but you still have fault). Not applicable in the forum situation, but it is in the example.

Nope, it's 100% his fault for holding the views that he does.

Similarly, if I make a thread about what would happen with class levels after you're reanimated and people want to focus on the RAW aspect of the reanimation itself and then call me a troll that's entirely on them.

[OldTrees1]

No, your judgment is correct regarding the RAW arguing - we just have differing opinions regarding whether that's bungling or not. If I'm at dinner with my (quite racist) grandfather and I say something about, for instance, the US president and he starts going on a horrible tirade, I didn't bungle the conversation, he did. Even if I knew he would, which in the instance of this thread I did not, I'm still not the one making a mistake.

I certainly agree that they are 100% at fault (they do have free will). I was saying that since the forum has a pattern of behavior, you could (if you had known) control it to some degree. If you had know then your action would have been the catalyst but the fault is still theirs. That is what I meant by bungled (back when I thought you might have known).

But enough of my derailing your thread.


As I said in my answer to the OP's question (what would you as the DM do in this case): I would ask the player of the dead PC if they liked any of several options (Basic Race, Basic Race + Feat, Advanced Race with fewer levels).

However I am wondering, with things like Extra Attack and the boost near 11th level, can an advanced race work or does it skew the math of 5E too much?

[Shining Wrath]

After hearing all of this, I kind of want to play as a sapient undead. I could totally go with having to murder a few people. Even better, I can stage it so it will appear to one of the other party members that they were the ones who did it :smallwink:

I can totally see running a short campaign where every character is an undead of about the same CR, turned neutral by a patron who needs freewill undead minions for reasons.


Why do they have to have a malevolent agenda? Can't they just want to be immortal and/or stronger?


It's part of the fluff text for the wight; what you might call "feral" wights come into existence because some Dark Power is down with their desire to continue to do bad stuff after their death. The question before us is if it's possible for a PC to want to obtain immortality and / or strength via the very particular method of having someone use Create Undead on their corpse, and yet remain not-evil. I submit that's a DM call, and my house rule on the nature of undead makes it unlikely in my world.



Of course it stays a PC. There are instances in the game where the DM may take control of your character and this is not one of them. At what point has my story changed?

That there are rules stating the DM can take control of a PC under some circumstances doesn't mean those circumstances are the only ones. There's enough oops moments in the 5e rules that I think you could argue this might be an oversight - they thought about PCs encountering lycanthropes and vampires, but didn't think about Create Undead being used on a PC corpse. Per my rules for the nature of undead, I'd take partial control of the character - the malevolent spirit is "in charge", but I'd allow the player to argue for what the trapped soul of the PC would be fighting for. It's entirely possible the malevolent spirit might find that it had interests aligning with those of the party, if they are fighting some threat to the very existence of the world - and when level 8 spells are being thrown around, you probably aren't dealing with goblins and bandits as the foes in the campaign.

[Lines]

I certainly agree that they are 100% at fault (they do have free will). I was saying that since the forum has a pattern of behavior, you could (if you had known) control it to some degree. If you had know then your action would have been the catalyst but the fault is still theirs. That is what I meant by bungled (back when I thought you might have known).

But enough of my derailing your thread.


As I said in my answer to the OP's question (what would you as the DM do in this case): I would ask the player of the dead PC if they liked any of several options (Basic Race, Basic Race + Feat, Advanced Race with fewer levels).

However I am wondering, with things like Extra Attack and the boost near 11th level, can an advanced race work or does it skew the math of 5E too much?

Hm. It probably skews you towards rogue/cleric/lore bard (built around never getting two attacks, multiattack is a straight up bonus) or level dipping in a lot of martial classes, unless there's a particular synergy (light wights and oathbreakers). Main problem I see is getting how many class levels a monster is worth right, which was basically 3.5's main problem with it. Is there an easier way than judging on an individual basis?

[OldTrees1]

Main problem I see is getting how many class levels a monster is worth right, which was basically 3.5's main problem with it. Is there an easier way than judging on an individual basis?

No. It is inherently a case by case basis. 3.5 had the benefit of smooth power curves(linear or quadratic) rather than the bumps 5E has and even there it had to be case by case basis.

[EvanescentHero]

Again, find out what the word for this is and then never let it describe you again.

Why don't you learn to stop being condescending to everyone who disagrees with you before trying to tell others how to act?

--------------------

Anyway, to contribute at least slightly to the actual thread (because the topic interests me), I would probably replace the original race with "wight," cutting all features of the original race and replacing them with the features of a wight. So no need to eat, sleep, or breathe; immunity to poison; darkvision; and the like. That also includes the fact that undead creatures gain no benefit from healing spells or items. However, it doesn't include multiattack, parry, spellcasting, or anything like that. If this was too powerful, I would either make it cost a level (probably not, as I don't much care for ECL) or give the rest of the party other interesting power boosts to match.

I would also require the player to reflect the turn to undeath in the way they roleplay the character, because I don't feel that being turned into an undead monster should leave your personality completely unaffected. Especially if the character was a cleric. Though if the character was a cleric (with any domain besides death), I would think that the change into something so unholy and repugnant would be earth-shattering to that character.

[CantigThimble]

Nope, it's 100% his fault for holding the views that he does.

Similarly, if I make a thread about what would happen with class levels after you're reanimated and people want to focus on the RAW aspect of the reanimation itself and then call me a troll that's entirely on them.

I know a stove is hot and I tell a child 'You shouldn't touch it', he asks me why and I just say 'You shouldn't touch it' again and walk out of the room. He touches it, I am at fault because I did not communicate in a way that would produce the best results.

Same situation, the child asks me why and I explain the concepts of thermodynamics and the effects of heat on a molecular level in regard to living cells without ever saying 'It will hurt your hand'. I walk out of the room, the child burns his hand, again I am at fault for not communicating in the way that produces the best results.

In both cases I am technically in the right because I provided correct information and my perspective is the correct one, but I am also at fault because I didn't share the information and perspective in a way that would produce good results. Not that I'm comparing your grandfather or the forum goers here to children who need to be told that a stove will burn them, I'm just using it as an example of a situation in which it is obvious that the person with the correct understanding of the situation can be at fault for the actions of someone they did not communicate with in the best way possible. People understand things in different ways and in every instance the goal should be to produce the best results from the discussion, not just to be right from your own perspective.

P.S. I'm not expressing a judgement about who was in the right or who reacted poorly in this thread, just sharing perspective in a way I think will produce more positive results for myself and others in the future. (If I analyze my own methods here I find that I am deliberately avoiding confrontation because that often gives people a mental excuse to ignore what is being said. So rather than share an opinion I'm presenting it in as neutral terms as possible because that improves the chances that someone will understand my point.)

[Lines]

I know a stove is hot and I tell a child 'You shouldn't touch it', he asks me why and I just say 'You shouldn't touch it' again and walk out of the room. He touches it, I am at fault because I did not communicate in a way that would produce the best results.

Same situation, the child asks me why and I explain the concepts of thermodynamics and the effects of heat on a molecular level in regard to living cells without ever saying 'It will hurt your hand'. I walk out of the room, the child burns his hand, again I am at fault for not communicating in the way that produces the best results.

In both cases I am technically in the right because I provided correct information and my perspective is the correct one, but I am also at fault because I didn't share the information and perspective in a way that would produce good results. Not that I'm comparing your grandfather or the forum goers here to children who need to be told that a stove will burn them, I'm just using it as an example of a situation in which it is obvious that the person with the correct understanding of the situation can be at fault for the actions of someone they did not communicate with in the best way possible. People understand things in different ways and in every instance the goal should be to produce the best results from the discussion, not just to be right from your own perspective.

P.S. I'm not expressing a judgement about who was in the right or who reacted poorly in this thread, just sharing perspective in a way I think will produce more positive results for myself and others in the future. (If I analyze my own methods here I find that I am deliberately avoiding confrontation because that often gives people a mental excuse to ignore what is being said. So rather than share an opinion I'm presenting it in as neutral terms as possible because that improves the chances that someone will understand my point.)

Not sure how analogous that is, that people immediately started arguing over the reanimation part genuinely took me by surprise. Not that I would have behaved much differently if I'd known, I just would have put a disclaimer on the first post asking people to keep the arguments separate.


Why don't you learn to stop being condescending to everyone who disagrees with you before trying to tell others how to act?

No. I'm fine with being disagreed with, it's the deliberately arguing at cross purposes that annoys me. This is not about disagreement, this is about this part:

Me: What do you think happens when x? Do you think w, or y, or maybe z?

Malifice: Can you link me to the part in the rules where it states that y happens with x?

Me: Sure, let me just link you to the bit where I've stated several times that the rules don't cover this part.

You: So, in other words, no.

I'm telling you how to act because the way you acted was not ok. Did you figure out the word for it yet?

[JackPhoenix]

Why would they recast it? I'm not saying no groups have animosity, but from my experience people tend to trust their party members. Why would you agree to have your party necromancer turn you into a wight if you didn't trust him to release you?

What agreement? The necromancer doesn't have to ask, he'll just do it. And if you give him your permission beforehand, hey, if you think being turned into a twisted, hateful, eternally life-force hungry mockery of your former existence filled with fragments of your memories is a good idea, go for it! And if the rest of the party is stupid enough to still trust you after your transformation, it's their lives at stake.


Motivated by hunger for living souls and driven by the same desire for power that awakened them in undeath, some wights serve as shock troops for evil leaders, including wraiths. As soldiers, they are able to plan but seldom do so, relying on their hunger for destruction to overwhelm any creature that stands before them.

If this sounds like the same personality as the pre-wightification character to you, perhaps trusting them in the first place wasn't the smartest move either.

They would also lose all their character levels, Create Undead turns corpses into ghouls (wights with level 8 slot) with statistics available to DM. Statistics for wights in MM doesn't have any character levels, class abilities or ability scores typical for PCs. Unlike werewolf or vampire, wight isn't intended for players...the Vampire and Lycantrope MM entry specifically says what will happen to the characters they are turned into one. It doesn't say the DM may take control of the PC...because wight is no longer a PC.

[swrider]

Not sure how analogous that is, that people immediately started arguing over the reanimation part genuinely took me by surprise. Not that I would have behaved much differently if I'd known, I just would have put a disclaimer on the first post asking people to keep the arguments separate.

Indeed perhaps it is not to late for said disclaimer. Given the assumption that a PC can be turned into a wight and remain a PC, how would you handle their existing class levels and gaining new class levels.

From what I remember of the rules the best way to determine the level of a wight would be to reverse the NPC to CR calculations in the DMG. While this would be a pain it should only need to happen once.

[CantigThimble]

Indeed perhaps it is not to late for said disclaimer. Given the assumption that a PC can be turned into a wight, how would you handle their existing class levels and gaining new class levels.

From what I remember of the rules the best way to determine the level of a wight would be to reverse the NPC to CR calculations in the DMG. While this would be a pain it should only need to happen once.

In that case I'd just treat the wight as having 4 levels in 'monster' and go from there exactly like multiclassing. It has a proficiency mod of less than 3 but has a lot of powerful abilities and HP for a low level character.

[Gwendol]

'its spirit cries out to the demon lord orcus or some other dark deity'... the soul stays exactly where it is, so it's still a player character. It's not moving their memories and drives anywhere, they're staying right where they are.

Does it? The bright spark is gone and replaced by a desire to consume that spark in all living things. Also, you are beholden to Orcus, or some similar evil entity. It looks to me as if the soul becomes warped, changed, corrupted. Memories and drives are not the same as keeping class levels; it's just that the wight remembers its past.

[EvanescentHero]

I'm telling you how to act because the way you acted was not ok. Did you figure out the word for it yet?

Funny, you seem to think this was totally okay.


This is correct! Good on you for getting the first part right, buddy.

One of the most condescending things I've seen on these boards. Coupled with this:


Yeah, sure. Let me link exactly to the part where that's spelled out:

You could've simply restated what you'd said without being sarcastic and rude about it, and I would've had no problem. As it is, from what I've read, this is a common occurrence with you. So frankly, until you stop treating other people as if they're idiots, I don't see how you have the right to tell anyone else how to behave.

This will be my final reply to you about this. I know you'll want to get the last word in, so feel free, but I won't be reading it. Enjoy.

[Lines]

What agreement? The necromancer doesn't have to ask, he'll just do it. And if you give him your permission beforehand, hey, if you think being turned into a twisted, hateful, eternally life-force hungry mockery of your former existence filled with fragments of your memories is a good idea, go for it! And if the rest of the party is stupid enough to still trust you after your transformation, it's their lives at stake.
It's not fragments of your memories, you stay the same person (with however much of a personality change you think is appropriate to more hunger for life force and no hormones).


If this sounds like the same personality as the pre-wightification character to you, perhaps trusting them in the first place wasn't the smartest move either.

They would also lose all their character levels, Create Undead turns corpses into ghouls (wights with level 8 slot) with statistics available to DM. Statistics for wights in MM doesn't have any character levels, class abilities or ability scores typical for PCs. Unlike werewolf or vampire, wight isn't intended for players...the Vampire and Lycantrope MM entry specifically says what will happen to the characters they are turned into one. It doesn't say the DM may take control of the PC...because wight is no longer a PC.
The first part's an interesting perspective, but why aren't they a PC? It's the same person, no book mentions anything about you losing control over your character.


Does it? The bright spark is gone and replaced by a desire to consume that spark in all living things. Also, you are beholden to Orcus, or some similar evil entity. It looks to me as if the soul becomes warped, changed, corrupted. Memories and drives are not the same as keeping class levels; it's just that the wight remembers its past.

Yeah, I'm aware - as stated many times, there are no proper rules either way on what happens class wise. Beholden wise, not really - unlike a regular wight which is someone's spirit crying out at the moment of your death and being answered by a dark god, you're being made a wight through the create undead spell.

[Segev]

Assuming you can find a cleric willing and able to raise you. High level clerics are not an everyday occurrence in some worlds.This has me now envisioning a game where a high-level party has suffered one or more losses, and so they adopt a 1st level cleric with the express purpose of getting him leveled up enough that they can hand him the diamonds they've been hoarding to get their friends back.

Cleric husbandry!


Is there a word or phrase to describe this? When you start off by saying you don't have an answer, someone picks an answer for you then demands that you show them how that answer is correct and then somebody else is all like 'ha, looks like you couldn't prove that point you never made' - please find the word that describes the second and third person in that scenario and then try your hardest to never have that word describe you again, because it's not a good look.This is called a "strawman argument." The process of creating an argument that you can easily refute and the claiming it's what those arguing against your position are saying, all the while ignoring what they really are saying. Advanced versions insist that failure on the part of your opponents to defend the strawman that you have constructed for them means they're conceding the argument to you.

[Lines]

Indeed perhaps it is not to late for said disclaimer. Given the assumption that a PC can be turned into a wight and remain a PC, how would you handle their existing class levels and gaining new class levels.

Disclaimer: This thread has two parts. The intended part is what happens with xp and class levels after you are wighted, which has no rules either way. The other part is whether you stay you if you're turned into a wight - which, RAW, yes you do, but if you want to discuss that part that's ok, just remember this thread is based on the RAW answer because if not there's nothing to talk about.


This will be my final reply to you about this. I know you'll want to get the last word in, so feel free, but I won't be reading it. Enjoy.
Turtles.


This has me now envisioning a game where a high-level party has suffered one or more losses, and so they adopt a 1st level cleric with the express purpose of getting him leveled up enough that they can hand him the diamonds they've been hoarding to get their friends back.

Cleric husbandry!

This is called a "strawman argument." The process of creating an argument that you can easily refute and the claiming it's what those arguing against your position are saying, all the while ignoring what they really are saying. Advanced versions insist that failure on the part of your opponents to defend the strawman that you have constructed for them means they're conceding the argument to you.

Strawman wise, thank you! Cleric husbandry wise, that's actually pretty great. Mind if I steal a cleric raised for that purpose as a bad guy?

[Segev]

Turtles.Aw, crud. How can I top a final word like Turtles.?




Strawman wise, thank you! Cleric husbandry wise, that's actually pretty great. Mind if I steal a cleric raised for that purpose as a bad guy?
You're welcome, and you're welcome to it. I'd be interested to hear how it turns out, but don't feel obligated if it becomes inconvenient to share. Good luck with it!

[swrider]

Aw, crud. How can I top a final word like Turtles.?

April O'Neil ?

[RickAllison]

Spork. Spork is a better last word.

[Shining Wrath]

Probably the most commonly used last word in history is

OOPS

[tieren]

From a story perspective I can imagine lots of interesting stories that could involve characters continuing towards their mortal goals after their corruption into undead.

Game/RAW wise though there is no debate, wights are not a playable race so the PC is dead and needs to roll a new character, unless the DM home rules otherwise. Looks like many reasonable DMs would make some allowance for it, but there is no pretending the rules are requiring it as written.

[OldTrees1]

From a story perspective I can imagine lots of interesting stories that could involve characters continuing towards their mortal goals after their corruption into undead.

Game/RAW wise though there is no debate, wights are not a playable race so the PC is dead and needs to roll a new character, unless the DM home rules otherwise. Looks like many reasonable DMs would make some allowance for it, but there is no pretending the rules are requiring it as written.

And if you were the DM (getting back to the actual question), what allowances would you make for it?

[thepsyker]

Given that Raise Dead is, I believe, a 5th level spell and Create Undead is a 6th level spell I think it could be kind of interesting to see a party use it as a Wizard version of Raise Dead. Mechanically I'd probably just have them pick up the Life Drain (I think that's the name) ability, the resistances and immunities, and Darksight if they don't already have it. Downsides would probably mostly be RP. The physical changes described in the Monster description would impact how NPC's react to the character and I don't see the character retaining their personality while having to deal with certain new urges/bloodlust, maybe something like the consequences of the Lazarus Pits in the Arrow TV show, as being in conflict. Those could both open up interesting story telling opportunities.

[Segev]

Probably the most commonly used last word in history is

OOPS

I pray that I shall never hear
"Oops," whene'ere a mage be near.
And if I do, I'll pray instead
That I shall not soon be dead.

-Source unremembered

[RickAllison]

From a story perspective I can imagine lots of interesting stories that could involve characters continuing towards their mortal goals after their corruption into undead.

Game/RAW wise though there is no debate, wights are not a playable race so the PC is dead and needs to roll a new character, unless the DM home rules otherwise. Looks like many reasonable DMs would make some allowance for it, but there is no pretending the rules are requiring it as written.

They are definitely a playable race! With True Polymorph :smallbiggrin: but that's the only completely RAW way to get there.

[Lines]

From a story perspective I can imagine lots of interesting stories that could involve characters continuing towards their mortal goals after their corruption into undead.

Game/RAW wise though there is no debate, wights are not a playable race so the PC is dead and needs to roll a new character, unless the DM home rules otherwise. Looks like many reasonable DMs would make some allowance for it, but there is no pretending the rules are requiring it as written.

There's no actual distinction there. There's no rule saying that that's how playable races work, and in any case if you were true polymorphed into a wight you'd be able to continue playing, why wouldn't you if you were reanimated as one?

[Desamir]

There's no actual distinction there. There's no rule saying that that's how playable races work, and in any case if you were true polymorphed into a wight you'd be able to continue playing, why wouldn't you if you were reanimated as one?

A permanently polymorphed creature can't gain class levels. I'd rule the same way for a player-controlled Wight.

[Lines]

A permanently polymorphed creature can't gain class levels. I'd rule the same way for a player-controlled Wight.

We're improving, that's what the topic of this thread is - but still, where does it say a permanently polymorphed creature can't gain class levels?

[RickAllison]

A permanently polymorphed creature can't gain class levels. I'd rule the same way for a player-controlled Wight.

What rule says it can't gain class levels? I don't see anything in True Polymorph that prohibits this. Please find the rule and cite it, as that would completely change the dynamic of the discussion and give a fresh start to it. But as it is, all anti-class levels for creatures have been houserules and not in the books.

[Desamir]

We're improving, that's what the topic of this thread is - but still, where does it say a permanently polymorphed creature can't gain class levels?


What rule says it can't gain class levels? I don't see anything in True Polymorph that prohibits this. Please find the rule and cite it, as that would completely change the dynamic of the discussion and give a fresh start to it.

Where does it say it can? Spells are written permissively--they tell you what you can do. Monsters, by default, don't gain class levels. Furthermore, if True Polymorph said that you could gain character levels on top of your polymorphed form, that would actually hurt your point, because it would imply that you couldn't normally.


But as it is, all anti-class levels for creatures have been houserules and not in the books.

All pro-class levels for creatures are equally in houserule territory. They're certainly not in the books.

[Shining Wrath]

The question might be whether or not undead can learn - which is going right back to each DM's imagination as to how undead function. I'd say an undead creature with an intelligence greater than 5 or so can learn, but it might be a slow process given the brain in question is, in fact, dead.

[Gwendol]

The question might be whether or not undead can learn - which is going right back to each DM's imagination as to how undead function. I'd say an undead creature with an intelligence greater than 5 or so can learn, but it might be a slow process given the brain in question is, in fact, dead.

Not only that, but the desires and needs of such a creature is, by its very nature, very different from that of a living one. From the rules there is nothing that allows a risen or polymorphed creature to gain class levels, and as a DM that would be my default ruling.

[RickAllison]

Where does it say it can? Spells are written permissively--they tell you what you can do. Monsters, by default, don't gain class levels. Furthermore, if True Polymorph said that you could gain character levels on top of your polymorphed form, that would actually hurt your point, because it would imply that you couldn't normally.



All pro-class levels for creatures are equally in houserule territory. They're certainly not in the books.

No rule says they don't gain class levels. They usually don't, but no rule says they can't (the only rule covering it I've found is in the DMG and explicitly states they can). By default, PCs can gain levels. Why does this change when their form changes? If you wish to claim rules, cite them, quote them, but otherwise they have no bearing other than "I say this is a rule," in which case everyone has equal bearing.

[pwykersotz]

No rule says they don't gain class levels. They usually don't, but no rule says they can't (the only rule covering it I've found is in the DMG and explicitly states they can). By default, PCs can gain levels. Why does this change when their form changes? If you wish to claim rules, cite them, quote them, but otherwise they have no bearing other than "I say this is a rule," in which case everyone has equal bearing.

I provide the following refute out of a sense of fun, not because it should be taken overly seriously. I view the following (implicit) strict RAW to be poison to a game:

The PHB page 11 explicitly says that "Every character belongs to a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world."

So non intelligent, non humanoids are out.

Then it says : "Your race also increases one or more of your ability scores"

So any race that does not provide an ability score increase is out. This is enough to implicitly disqualify any non-template in the Monster Manual. If at any point you become something else, you invalidate prerequisites to continue using levels.

[CantigThimble]

No rule says they don't gain class levels. They usually don't, but no rule says they can't (the only rule covering it I've found is in the DMG and explicitly states they can). By default, PCs can gain levels. Why does this change when their form changes? If you wish to claim rules, cite them, quote them, but otherwise they have no bearing other than "I say this is a rule," in which case everyone has equal bearing.

Nothing states that their XP total changes in polymorph. So why doesn't a barbarian turned ape become a ape who has barbarian class levels instantly since they clearly have enough XP to level up?

[Sigreid]

Probably the most commonly used last word in history is

OOPS

I thought it would be "Hold my beer and watch this, it's gonna be great!"

[RickAllison]

I provide the following refute out of a sense of fun, not because it should be taken overly seriously. I view the following (implicit) strict RAW to be poison to a game:

The PHB page 11 explicitly says that "Every character belongs to a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world."

So non intelligent, non humanoids are out.

Then it says : "Your race also increases one or more of your ability scores"

So any race that does not provide an ability score increase is out. This is enough to implicitly disqualify any non-template in the Monster Manual. If at any point you become something else, you invalidate prerequisites to continue using levels.

Thank you, this is an actual argument :smallbiggrin:


Nothing states that their XP total changes in polymorph. So why doesn't a barbarian turned ape become a ape who has barbarian class levels instantly since they clearly have enough XP to level up?

But you take the creature's statblock. I believe (and if you have evidence against that, fantastic!) that XP is part of the statblock, which means that it would start with 0 XP. Thus, you would have at most level 1.

[CantigThimble]

But you take the creature's statblock. I believe (and if you have evidence against that, fantastic!) that XP is part of the statblock, which means that it would start with 0 XP. Thus, you would have at most level 1.

Pages 6-11 of the MM describe everything that is part of a creature's statblock. XP is not part of that. (except for XP gained by killing it) Therefore it isn't replaced when the statblock is replaced. If you believe that it is replaced by some implication then I assert that the ability to gain levels that PC's intrinsically have and nothing else does (that you have been claiming is unaffected because it isn't specifically disproven anywhere in polymorph) is replaced with their XP total.

Also, if polymorphed PCs have the ability to level, why aren't barbarians turned into apes level 1 barbarians at least?

[Lines]

I provide the following refute out of a sense of fun, not because it should be taken overly seriously. I view the following (implicit) strict RAW to be poison to a game:

The PHB page 11 explicitly says that "Every character belongs to a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world."

So non intelligent, non humanoids are out.

Then it says : "Your race also increases one or more of your ability scores"

So any race that does not provide an ability score increase is out. This is enough to implicitly disqualify any non-template in the Monster Manual. If at any point you become something else, you invalidate prerequisites to continue using levels.

That's not how the game works. Those are not hard and fast rules - you'll notice warforged is a race and a construct, not a humanoid.

[pwykersotz]

That's not how the game works. Those are not hard and fast rules - you'll notice warforged is a race and a construct, not a humanoid.

A Warforged is also not officially released and can't be judged on the same merits.

Also, please keep in mind that I'm all up for either interpretation. I posted the way I'd let the build go through many pages back. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20441849&postcount=80):smallsmile:

Edit:

I honestly think that both sides of the argument that this thread has become home to hold the same amount of water: None. The game isn't a hard and fast exercise in how much you can wring out of it, nor is it a series of restrictions you are expected to implicitly and explicitly adhere to (my opinion, I'm sure many people have fun with both those methods). It's a series of guidelines that allow people to share an imaginary world for a while. So the whole "RAW says vs RAW never denies" thing seems silly to me. I like the premise of what the thread became after a couple pages though, which was "IF you were to allow this, how would you enact it?" And I think that question applies to a whole lot of elements of the game. I responded to RickAllison just for the sake of it, like I lead with.

[Gnomes2169]

From a RAW perspective, a PC raised as a wight/ ghoul using the Create Undead spell gains that particular stat block, loses their class levels and is an undead minion under the necromancer's control until the wizard/ cleric releases it. Note how the spell explicitely states that you turn a target humanoid corpse into the creature desired, and does not have any special clauses for a particular humanoid or race, any clause for class levels or racial abilities, etc.

So, by the spell being used in this scenario, no class levels to start with.

However, on the subject of if the ghoul/ wight can gain class levels? That's up to the DM and players to work out amongst themselves (no rules that say one way or the other). For example; I could see some DM's ruling no because undead tend to stagnate instead of grow, while another one says yes because the undead creature is feasting upon the living and becoming stronger. It's not set in stone.

Personally, I would probably not let a player control a Wight, Specter or Ghoul as a character. All three would be a headache to work out a proper compromise for, all three would inevitably cause problems*, and I don't fully trust my players to not "cheat" with the personalities of their animated, weaponized murder corpses that look like their old characters, sound like their own characters but do not think like their own characters. It would be a new character at that point, which would be hard for pretty much anyone to keep straight.

*Wights and ghouls in particular, while both possess the memories of their former selves, inevitably cause more trouble then they are worth. Their personalities remain somewhat intact... But with the whole "murder all life because it is filthy and something to hate" flaw becoming something predominantly defining for them. It becomes all the worse because they can remember when life was beautiful and something they enjoyed, but then this wizard prick they argued with every other week (and didn't particularly enjoy the company of before he made them this undead monstrosity) decides to go and desecrate their corpse and make their life into this cold, hate-filled hell of an existance. Where everything they touch withers and dies, everyone they meet looks upon them with hatred and revulsion, and their "gut" reaction to all of this it to rip off everyone's faces... Because it would be fun. A properly played wight that was freed from its creator's control would, at the first realistic opportunity, gut the necromancer and dance in his blood. Which, needless to say, gets in the way of party cohesion, especially if they are both PC's.