[3.5] Immortality and Undeath

[Thurbane]

hey all, this question from the RAW thread got me to thinking:



Q 781

Do character who become undead benefit/suffer from ageing bonuses/penalties from before their undeath? What about after their undeath?

A 781

Unless I'm missing anything, there isn't a lot in the way of clear RAW on this, so here's my best interpretation:

No default description for Undead states ability scores are altered (apart from Con --), outside of what ability scores a specific template alters - so you wouldn't change any already applied bonuses/penalties.

Libris Mortis has surprisingly little information on the effect of aging on Undead. There is this:


Barring misfortune or their purposeful destruction, undead can expect to survive in good health for thousands of years, possibly even a great deal longer.


Unlike living creatures, which grow and mature throughout their life cycles, undead are usually changeless, frozen in the moment of their creation. Most are cursed to never adopt new philosophies, or change with the uncertainties and lessons of life, or ever find happiness.
An undead that persists for century after century sometimes finds ways to grow in strength and knowledge. Its connection to the Negative Energy Plane, originally a mere trickle, can become an actual current over hundreds of years, and given enough time, a mighty stream.

This is all basically fluff text, and somewhat open to interpretation. I've bolded what I consider to be the most relevant sections.

If you're looking for a strictly RAW answer, my answers to your questions would be A). Yes and B.) ask your DM.

I'd be more than happy if someone could find supporting evidence for a clearer RAW perspective. :smallsmile:

Couple of questons:

Is there any more specific RAW on Undead and aging?

Looking at the possible RAI for Undead (and other biologically ageless beings, like Constructs), I think there may be some support that you continue to accrue bonuses to mental stats (Int, Wis, Cha).

The class features Timeless Body (Monk) and Steal Immortality (Thief of Life) would both show some RAI support for this stance.

I found this is the FAQ document:


Does a human who becomes an undead apply the ability score adjustments as he ages?
The Sage recommends that aging effects not be applied to a PC who becomes undead.
It seems unreasonable that an undead’s physical ability scores should change based on the original race’s lifespan (why should a dwarf vampire stay strong longer than a half-orc vampire?).
Similarly, applying adjustments to mental ability scores seems to create more problems than it’s worth. Should a skeleton that’s been dead for 200 years be wiser than one that was just created? If a long-dead ghost gets smarter with age, why doesn’t a long-dead mummy?
That said, if a DM wanted to apply aging effects to ability scores for undead PCs, it’s not terribly unbalancing. He should just be prepared to answer a lot of corner-case questions—and most DMs will find it more hassle than it’s worth.


Also, is Immortality clearly defined anywhere in 3.5?

The closest I can find is this:


Immortality
All deities (even those of rank 0) are naturally immortal and cannot die from natural causes. Deities do not age, and they do not need to eat, sleep, or breathe. The only way for a deity to die is through special circumstances, usually by being slain in magical or physical combat. Deities of rank 1 or higher are not subject to death from massive damage.

I know there is an Immortality Handbook over at Brilliant Gameologists, but sadly it's inaccessible at the moment.

Cheers - T

[Thurbane]

I'm not normally one for bumping, but...

[Melcar]

hey all, this question from the RAW thread got me to thinking:



Couple of questons:

Is there any more specific RAW on Undead and aging?

Looking at the possible RAI for Undead (and other biologically ageless beings, like Constructs), I think there may be some support that you continue to accrue bonuses to mental stats (Int, Wis, Cha).

The class features Timeless Body (Monk) and Steal Immortality (Thief of Life) would both show some RAI support for this stance.

I found this is the FAQ document:




Also, is Immortality clearly defined anywhere in 3.5?

The closest I can find is this:



I know there is an Immortality Handbook over at Brilliant Gameologists, but sadly it's inaccessible at the moment.

Cheers - T

So... there are two ways of going about this.

1) Treat it like the monk. What ever change has occurred before immortality/lichdom is still in effect, and aging bonuses continue, but penalties stop increasing after achieved lichdom/immortality.

2) The penalties disappear, but the bonuses remain.

Since the undead are not alive and thus not subject to living degradation of cells and essentially fueled by magic I personally use the second model. All my undead have non of the penalties for aging, but all the bonuses. Just to be clear, that's only for sentient (character class) undead (liches, vampires, etc.. Mindless or monsters I neither give bonus or penalties. An old week dying man get transformed into lich. That lich would not be feeble still, but would regain all his lost strength and dex, but not loose his experience int, wis and cha bonus.

I have yet to see any definitive raw answer to this. But to me, option 2, makes the most sense!

[Jack_Simth]

I'm not normally one for bumping, but...
Well, you've already found all the basic arguments available yourself. Basically all that's left is various people's opinions, and the ever-present variations on "You need to do the same thing you should always do when the rules are not entirely clear: Ask the DM in question, and abide by that ruling at that table".

[Gildedragon]

Re undead getting better: evolved undead template.

[DrMotives]

So... there are two ways of going about this.

1) Treat it like the monk. What ever change has occurred before immortality/lichdom is still in effect, and aging bonuses continue, but penalties stop increasing after achieved lichdom/immortality.

2) The penalties disappear, but the bonuses remain.

Since the undead are not alive and thus not subject to living degradation of cells and essentially fueled by magic I personally use the second model. All my undead have non of the penalties for aging, but all the bonuses. Just to be clear, that's only for sentient (character class) undead (liches, vampires, etc.. Mindless or monsters I neither give bonus or penalties. An old week dying man get transformed into lich. That lich would not be feeble still, but would regain all his lost strength and dex, but not loose his experience int, wis and cha bonus.

I have yet to see any definitive raw answer to this. But to me, option 2, makes the most sense!

I'm not a fan of either of your options. They way I've always played it, and it has come up with both me and others DMing, is that any bonuses & penalties that have accrued at the moment of undeath stay forever, but no new changes come after. That being said, the right answer is really what everyone at a particular table decides it is.

[Celestia]

I'm not a fan of either of your options. They way I've always played it, and it has come up with both me and others DMing, is that any bonuses & penalties that have accrued at the moment of undeath stay forever, but no new changes come after. That being said, the right answer is really what everyone at a particular table decides it is.
This is the most logical option. Aging applies penalties because your body degrades. Becoming undead halts but does not reverse degradation. The bonuses come from learning and adapting as you gain experience. Becoming undead won't erase your growth. You won't, however, continue gaining bonuses. As stated above, undead are basically frozen in time. They no longer learn or develop. Thus, aging changes remain but no longer accrue.

[Gullintanni]

This is the most logical option. Aging applies penalties because your body degrades. Becoming undead halts but does not reverse degradation. The bonuses come from learning and adapting as you gain experience. Becoming undead won't erase your growth. You won't, however, continue gaining bonuses. As stated above, undead are basically frozen in time. They no longer learn or develop. Thus, aging changes remain but no longer accrue.

I agree that bonuses derived from growth, and adaptation and the experience of being long lived would remain and that no new bonuses would accrue; however, when a creature becomes an animate undead, I have a hard time believing that the body of the newly spawned undead would retain all the detriments of the flesh. Arthritis, decreased bone density, loss of muscle mass - none of these ailments would really matter for a creature whose strength derives from the animating force of negative energy, rather than from the material flesh itself.

Put another way, a skeleton animated 100 years after its passing would suffer no aging penalties as compared to a skeleton animated the day of its passing despite far more advanced decomposition. Why, then, should those physical penalties apply if the years accrued during life, as opposed to after death? I tend to lean towards the idea that animated and created undead have new bodies, and thus no physical penalties; while at least PC undead, get to retain their minds, and accordingly, mental bonuses.

[Remuko]

Intelligent, sentient undead can still gain experience (both literal and game versions) and level up. They can still grow. I see no reason they shouldnt keep accruing mental abilities as they get older but they would still cap when their original form would have capped. Honestly infinite int, wis, and cha growth makes the most sense but that isn't balanced at all so I cant really support that.

[Nifft]

I agree that bonuses derived from growth, and adaptation and the experience of being long lived would remain and that no new bonuses would accrue; however, when a creature becomes an animate undead, I have a hard time believing that the body of the newly spawned undead would retain all the detriments of the flesh. Arthritis, decreased bone density, loss of muscle mass - none of these ailments would really matter for a creature whose strength derives from the animating force of negative energy, rather than from the material flesh itself.

Well, the Con penalty does go away, so that's partially accounted for by the default rules.

The flesh is usually enhanced by gaining some kind of Str and sometimes Dex bonus.

But shouldn't a particularly strong human become a particularly strong vampire?

Likewise, shouldn't a weakened human become a less-strong vampire? (Still very strong because it's still a vampire, just relatively not as strong as other vampires which were created from more average humans.)

[Celestia]

I agree that bonuses derived from growth, and adaptation and the experience of being long lived would remain and that no new bonuses would accrue; however, when a creature becomes an animate undead, I have a hard time believing that the body of the newly spawned undead would retain all the detriments of the flesh. Arthritis, decreased bone density, loss of muscle mass - none of these ailments would really matter for a creature whose strength derives from the animating force of negative energy, rather than from the material flesh itself.

Put another way, a skeleton animated 100 years after its passing would suffer no aging penalties as compared to a skeleton animated the day of its passing despite far more advanced decomposition. Why, then, should those physical penalties apply if the years accrued during life, as opposed to after death? I tend to lean towards the idea that animated and created undead have new bodies, and thus no physical penalties; while at least PC undead, get to retain their minds, and accordingly, mental bonuses.
If that were the case, then the physical ability scores of the person wouldn't matter, but they do. A person with 18 strength becomes a skeleton with 18 strength, and a person with 8 strength becomes a skeleton with 8 strength. The physical attributes of the body still matter, so why would the changes caused by aging not count?

Now, your point about the state of decomposition of the body is a good one, and I don't actually have an answer for that. That's just a dysfunction, I guess.

[Tiri]

Well, the decomposition issue could be explained by the fact that when a skeleton decomposes, the whole thing does so at once (and at a much slower rate than other tissues), while aging penalties related to skeletal structure are at least partly due to specific joints and bones being worn down from activity.

Therefore, the aged skeleton's most important bits, the ones that do most of the moving, are more damaged and less able to exert force and perform precise actions than that of a skeleton that has been decomposing but whose crucial parts may not have suffered so much wear and tear.

It's not a perfect explanation, depending on how long the skeleton in question may have been decomposing, but in most cases I think it holds up.

[zergling.exe]

If that were the case, then the physical ability scores of the person wouldn't matter, but they do. A person with 18 strength becomes a skeleton with 18 strength, and a person with 8 strength becomes a skeleton with 8 strength. The physical attributes of the body still matter, so why would the changes caused by aging not count?

Now, your point about the state of decomposition of the body is a good one, and I don't actually have an answer for that. That's just a dysfunction, I guess.

The fluff goes back and forth on this, but some cases have remnants of the original soul as part of the animating force. It's possible that these remnants would remember bit about the body to put it back into a more serviceable state, or just compensating with magic.

I'd personally separate undead into two "types": animating and preserving. Animating undead are like ghouls, mummies and morghs. They are either a completely separate creature from what they were before or have basically nothing left of them.

Preserving undead are like liches, vampires and necropolitans. They take a screenshot of who they were at death, and return to unlife in that exact manner, perfectly preserved and unchanging throughout time. Zombies and skeletons loosely fit into this group with the exception of zombies fluff saying they decompose and skeletons burning off the flesh (as well as being mindless).

The first group has no age categories and doesn't age at all, so nothing would give them any bonuses or penalties anyway. Group 2 however is templated creatures. As undead they are unchanging, so they would neither gain mental attributes from aging since their perspective is locked in place, nor would they take physical penalties since negative energy is preserving their function. Any they had already accrued would remain in place because intelligent ones wouldn't revert to their younger thinking and necromancy spells aren't part of the (Healing) subschool to heal the damage of time.

[Kaleph]

Intelligent, sentient undead can still gain experience (both literal and game versions) and level up. They can still grow. I see no reason they shouldnt keep accruing mental abilities as they get older but they would still cap when their original form would have capped. Honestly infinite int, wis, and cha growth makes the most sense but that isn't balanced at all so I cant really support that.

One of the clichès with vampires is that, when a child is "vampirized", he will continue forever to behave childish. He won't become more "mature", which is the in-life counterpart of the in-game mental abilities increase.

Of course this is a clichè, but I'm ok with it and I'd second its use when dealing with undeads' abilities.

[Florian]

A nightmare: eternal puberty.

[Celestia]

A nightmare: eternal puberty.
Imagine being perpetually horny but not having the equipment to do anything about it. :smalleek:

[zergling.exe]

One of the clichès with vampires is that, when a child is "vampirized", he will continue forever to behave childish. He won't become more "mature", which is the in-life counterpart of the in-game mental abilities increase.

Of course this is a clichè, but I'm ok with it and I'd second its use when dealing with undeads' abilities.

Well their brain wouldn't finish developing, so they kinda would be stuck in a childish mindset forever. Part of what lets us grow up is the brain finishing growing first.

That and 3.5's fluff saying that undead don't mentally change ever.

[Calthropstu]

This is the most logical option. Aging applies penalties because your body degrades. Becoming undead halts but does not reverse degradation. The bonuses come from learning and adapting as you gain experience. Becoming undead won't erase your growth. You won't, however, continue gaining bonuses. As stated above, undead are basically frozen in time. They no longer learn or develop. Thus, aging changes remain but no longer accrue.

I disagree. The bonuses and minuses are physical in nature. Your bone structure, brain growth, natural muscle degradation... once you are undead, all of that becomes irrelevant. RAW, the age bonuses/penalties are exactly that: a bonus/penalty of type (aging).
A creature immune to (aging) neither suffers nor benefits from (aging). So the benefits and the penalties go away.

[Florian]

Imagine being perpetually horny but not having the equipment to do anything about it. :smalleek:

Reminds me - you know how the city of Calephas got rid of a whole clan of juvie vamps (with a slight glittering problem)? The paid a werewolf to drop a hint that taking a long cold shower using holy water could give them reprieve from their "ailment".

[Tiri]

I disagree. The bonuses and minuses are physical in nature. Your bone structure, brain growth, natural muscle degradation... once you are undead, all of that becomes irrelevant. RAW, the age bonuses/penalties are exactly that: a bonus/penalty of type (aging).
A creature immune to (aging) neither suffers nor benefits from (aging). So the benefits and the penalties go away.

That doesn't make sense. If your brain has already grown and your muscles already degraded, becoming undead should just preserve you the way you are. Your brain will stay grown and your muscles stay degraded (although this may be affected by how undead templates change ability scores).


Imagine being perpetually horny but not having the equipment to do anything about it. :smalleek:

Presumably all that energy would just be diverted elsewhere, although it might also be that without the equipment you also lose the urge to use said equipment.

[Kaleph]

A nightmare: eternal puberty.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::s mallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Calthropstu]

That doesn't make sense. If your brain has already grown and your muscles already degraded, becoming undead should just preserve you the way you are. Your brain will stay grown and your muscles stay degraded (although this may be affected by how undead templates change ability scores).



Presumably all that energy would just be diverted elsewhere, although it might also be that without the equipment you also lose the urge to use said equipment.

Much of d&d does not make sense. However, strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense for a lich, which is a walking skeleton, to be able to think at all. The thinking is tied to a soul, not a brain in this case. Since souls are technically immortal, age bonuses must be inherently tied to a body. A body which is no longer in play.
What does not make sense is to apply physioligical changes to something that does not suffer those physiological changes.

[Nifft]

A nightmare: eternal puberty.
I suddenly understand why vampires dress like edgy teens.


Imagine being perpetually horny but not having the equipment to do anything about it. :smalleek:
I also suddenly empathize with their murderous rage against the world of the living.

[Tiri]

What does not make sense is to apply physioligical changes to something that does not suffer those physiological changes.

Exactly. The aged creature's physiology has already changed to be the way it is. Undeath is going to leave it the way it is, not restore it to a previous state.

If it helps, think of the aging ability score changes as a kind of spell, with a duration of instantaneous rather than permanent. They change the scores once, and after that the score simply stays the same. There is no ongoing effect to be 'dispelled' by undeath.

[zergling.exe]

Much of d&d does not make sense. However, strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense for a lich, which is a walking skeleton, to be able to think at all. The thinking is tied to a soul, not a brain in this case. Since souls are technically immortal, age bonuses must be inherently tied to a body. A body which is no longer in play.
What does not make sense is to apply physioligical changes to something that does not suffer those physiological changes.

By that logic, undead of one type should all have the same stats because their body doesn't matter. A lich fighter, wizard and sorcerer would be identical.

[Zanos]

There's no RAW for how aging affects undead, really. Technically there's no rules text anywhere that even says that undead don't die when they hit their maximum age.

I recall that there's an elixir in an issue of...dungeon magazine? It makes you immortal but you continue to gain +1 to mental stats and -1 to physicals every 200 years or something. Can't remember the name of it.

[Necroticplague]

I believe the closest thing to what the rules say would be that undead keep all the current bonuses and penalties, but cannot gain new ones. My logic for this interpretation is as follows:

1. Undead are the results of templates. These templates are applied to the creatures as they are. Thus, their current stats, whatever they are and however they got them, are used. So the fact it's physical stats are lowered a bit (and mental stats increased), is all that's relevant, without any care as to whether that comes from age or point distribution.
2. There aren't any rules for undead age categories. A Necropolitan Human is a different creature from a Human. The latter has defined age categories, while the former does not. Thus, the latter lacks any categories for it to move through to apply the aging rules. Thus, it can't gain or lose anything to aging.

Of course, for non-templated undead, the point is moot, as the stats or the original creature don't effect those of the new one.

And note that, despite not having age categories, the Evolved template does provide some form of difference between old and young undead.

[Telonius]

The Vampire Lord (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20021018a) template (vamp-specific) gives a power boost. While there are several requirements, one of them is that the vampire must have been in existence at least 100 years.

[Zanos]

I believe the closest thing to what the rules say would be that undead keep all the current bonuses and penalties, but cannot gain new ones. My logic for this interpretation is as follows:

1. Undead are the results of templates. These templates are applied to the creatures as they are. Thus, their current stats, whatever they are and however they got them, are used. So the fact it's physical stats are lowered a bit (and mental stats increased), is all that's relevant, without any care as to whether that comes from age or point distribution.
2. There aren't any rules for undead age categories. A Necropolitan Human is a different creature from a Human. The latter has defined age categories, while the former does not. Thus, the latter lacks any categories for it to move through to apply the aging rules. Thus, it can't gain or lose anything to aging.

Of course, for non-templated undead, the point is moot, as the stats or the original creature don't effect those of the new one.

And note that, despite not having age categories, the Evolved template does provide some form of difference between old and young undead.
That seems like a pretty loose justification, since it implies that anything unmentioned in a template is irrelevant, which isn't the case. You retain anything a template doesn't mention as changed. And it also implies that any template does this.

[Gildedragon]

There's no RAW for how aging affects undead, really. Technically there's no rules text anywhere that even says that undead don't die when they hit their maximum age.

I recall that there's an elixir in an issue of...dungeon magazine? It makes you immortal but you continue to gain +1 to mental stats and -1 to physicals every 200 years or something. Can't remember the name of it.

Considering that undead are already dead, and references to their post-undeathing cessation of existence consistently call it "destruction" instead of "death"...
Is old age a death effect?

[Nifft]

Considering that undead are already dead, and references to their post-undeathing cessation of existence consistently call it "destruction" instead of "death"...
Is old age a death effect?

If it were, then immunity to [Death] effects would be a lot more popular.

[Thurbane]

So from what I'm reading, there's no clear RAW (unless you accept the FAQ as RAW, but most people don't), and RAI can be argued a number of different ways.

As to the second part of my OP...is there an actual 3.X definition of immortality?

[Melcar]

I'm not a fan of either of your options. They way I've always played it, and it has come up with both me and others DMing, is that any bonuses & penalties that have accrued at the moment of undeath stay forever, but no new changes come after. That being said, the right answer is really what everyone at a particular table decides it is.


This is the most logical option. Aging applies penalties because your body degrades. Becoming undead halts but does not reverse degradation. The bonuses come from learning and adapting as you gain experience. Becoming undead won't erase your growth. You won't, however, continue gaining bonuses. As stated above, undead are basically frozen in time. They no longer learn or develop. Thus, aging changes remain but no longer accrue.

Why would a fleshless skeleton animated purely by negative energy be affected by muscular dystrophy? Broken pelvis and arthritis it suffered from as a living creature? You can chop a skeletons arm of and it wont matter. It doesn't matter if you kill and animate a 20 year old or animate a 1000 year old since its the magic that keeps that corpse walking or fuels the lich... Se below! If the skeleton has no muscle fibers does it have strength and dex 0? Larloch is described as having only bone and no eyes yet the dude has a strength score and can see... Magic people... magic!


when a creature becomes an animate undead, I have a hard time believing that the body of the newly spawned undead would retain all the detriments of the flesh. Arthritis, decreased bone density, loss of muscle mass - none of these ailments would really matter for a creature whose strength derives from the animating force of negative energy, rather than from the material flesh itself.

Put another way, a skeleton animated 100 years after its passing would suffer no aging penalties as compared to a skeleton animated the day of its passing despite far more advanced decomposition. Why, then, should those physical penalties apply if the years accrued during life, as opposed to after death? I tend to lean towards the idea that animated and created undead have new bodies, and thus no physical penalties; while at least PC undead, get to retain their minds, and accordingly, mental bonuses.




Intelligent, sentient undead can still gain experience (both literal and game versions) and level up. They can still grow. I see no reason they shouldnt keep accruing mental abilities as they get older but they would still cap when their original form would have capped. Honestly infinite int, wis, and cha growth makes the most sense but that isn't balanced at all so I cant really support that.

Indeed... If they can level up, gain experience and skills, why would they not increase in mental acuity and the eons passes? It makes no sense if they can increase their mental abilities from leaning so too should they be able too from aging.



One of the clichès with vampires is that, when a child is "vampirized", he will continue forever to behave childish. He won't become more "mature", which is the in-life counterpart of the in-game mental abilities increase.

Of course this is a clichè, but I'm ok with it and I'd second its use when dealing with undeads' abilities.

Well they actually become stronger when aging. Both their physical and mental abilities increase. Hence flight, super speed, and much stronger mental abilities as they age. Their human stats have very little to do with what a 1000 year old vampire can and cannot do.

[Mordaedil]

Presumably all that energy would just be diverted elsewhere, although it might also be that without the equipment you also lose the urge to use said equipment.
Even worse, rigor mortis.

[Florian]

Indeed... If they can level up, gain experience and skills, why would they not increase in mental acuity and the eons passes? It makes no sense if they can increase their mental abilities from leaning so too should they be able too from aging.

Actually, they can´t. Nothing in D&D can level-up outside of pure gm fiat. And don´t try to use player character liches as an argument. They need special approval to play a monster or gain a template in the first place, then they´re tied into a player-only mechanic, gaining XP.