Undead Mastery and applied templates

[Jowgen]

Follow up to Rules Q&A question 20.

Dread Necromancer 8 grants the ability "Undead Mastery", which makes it so that "all undead creatures created by a dread necromancer [...]gain a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and Dexterity and 2 additional hit points per Hit Die."

My question in the Q&A thread was whether an undead Dread Necromancer can use this ability to apply the benefit to himself by Spellstiching himself. The point extends to spellstitching other undead, or otherwise actively applying templates to undead.

In the Q&E thread, Venger answered that this does not work, arguing that Undead Mastery only works if the creature isn't already undead, i.e. needs to make the undead from scratch, out of nothing or from something that isn't undead.

I think the rules disagree with this quite explicitly, in that they clearly define the act of applying a template to count as "creating" that templated creature, regardless of whether the template was inherited or somehow acquired. Three pieces of rules text to cite here, the first being the very first line on templates from the Monster Manual and SRD:


Certain creatures are created by adding a template to an existing creature.

Secondly, the rules text detailing how to apply the Spellstitched template is literally titled "Creating a Spellstitched creature" (with every other template following the same titling convention). Third, the section on Spellstitched Spell-like abilities explicitly refers to whoever applies the template to the undead in question as "The creator of a spellstitched creature".

So it seems to me that when you Spellstitch or otherwise actively apply a template to an undead creature, you quite clearly are considered to be creating it. I.E. applying a template is not a mere alteration to a creature, you a literally creating a new creature by using the base creature as the... well, base. Simple example, you take a "Vampire" and by use of the rules detailed in the "Creating a Spellstitched Creature" text you create a "Spellstitched Vampire".

Normally I'd consider this pedantic rules-lawyering, but the relevant wording does seem pretty specific, prominent and clear to me.

Thoughts anyone? Pieces of other rules text that either further supports or discredits my conclusion?

[Crake]

I'd be inclined to agree with you, if for the simple fact that from a fluff perspective the dread necromancer is working on and modifying the undead, and can incorporate the extra hit points, strength, and dex during that process. I wouldn't let it stack though. I mean, obviously the str and dex won't stack, because they're enhancement bonuses, but I wouldn't let the hp stack either, same source and all that.

Doing it in a altar-desecrated area, and enlisting the aid of a UA necromancer who gets a similar ability, will let you stack up up to 6hp/HD though, a nice side-mention.

[Venger]

I'll begin by saying that, given my experience with your posts such as the Tenser's Floating Disk handbook, your command of the minutiae of raw is far greater than my own. I don't think I'll flip you on your view, but since we're out of the simple raw thread, I thought it might be useful if I elaborated on the thought process behind my answer there:

I came to the conclusion in my post there as follows:

You have, for example, a human. You kill him and use create undead to morph him into a ghoul.

You have created this undead. It didn't exist before you intervened and formed it with your magic. At this point, your undead mastery (and your corpsecrafter line or what have you) would kick in and give him bonuses.

Later, you want to spellstitch the ghoul. You're beefing him up, but you are not creating a new undead. He was already an extant undead. You're just improving him. he was already a ghoul (an undead) and you applying the spellstitched template to him did not cause him to become undead, the way you turning a human into a vampire (if you are a vampire) for example would. I think the crux of our disagreement here is the following: I agree that as per the text "creating a spellstitched creature" etc etc, that you are in fact creating a new monster by applying the spellstitched template to the ghoul. I don't think that you are creating a new undead by doing so, however.

I'm aware the term "creating" is used with all templates. I believe when it comes to the application of undead mastery, though, you would use the litmus of "did the action I just performed increase the number of undead in the area?" such as casting animate dead on this troll corpse and raising it as a skeleton. that undead wasn't there a round ago, and now it is, so it would gain the benefits.

I understand your rationale, and it's definitely internally consistent, but to my knowledge, "create" isn't a defined rules term, so there's going to be some amount of guesswork involved. I'm afraid in areas like this, I don't have any relevant citations beyond what you've already quoted.

In terms of what one should do in actual play, I certainly agree that you ought to be able to get those bonuses in scenarios like this, I just don't know how well raw supports it.

[Falontani]

I personally can't decide. But for a different reason. I personally believe (and the people I play with irl tend to agree) when you apply an undead template to a creature you are simply modifying the base creature. You did not (usually) create the creature, rather you modified an existing one. When you create a ghoul it's not just some ghoul, but a ghoul that bares the resemblance, of and could regain the memories of "Bob". I believe from a role play protective that if "Bob's" wife saw the ghoulish "Bob" she would recognize him. He is truly different, but still "Bob". In order to bring "Bob" back you must first destroy this undead version of him and then cast resurrection. Because "Bob" is here, just trapped in this new form. The necromancer (usually) does not create "Bob" but they did create the undead version of "Bob" and thus should totally apply the abilities (which is normal) However you can use ALL the same logic for spellstitched, yet I personally would not say that it counted as created, yet could not quantify a reason for that.

Ps: most forms of undead that a necromancer might become he would already be creating himself. Like the lich ascension.

[Jowgen]

I'd be inclined to agree with you, if for the simple fact that from a fluff perspective the dread necromancer is working on and modifying the undead, and can incorporate the extra hit points, strength, and dex during that process. I wouldn't let it stack though. I mean, obviously the str and dex won't stack, because they're enhancement bonuses, but I wouldn't let the hp stack either, same source and all that.

Doing it in a altar-desecrated area, and enlisting the aid of a UA necromancer who gets a similar ability, will let you stack up up to 6hp/HD though, a nice side-mention.

Oh yeah, stacking the Undead Mastery bonuses mutliple times is obviously off the table. More importantly, I had not considered that this might be applied to Desecrate and other things that improve undead when they're "created". Good catch that. :smallsmile:


I'll begin by saying that, given my experience with your posts such as the Tenser's Floating Disk handbook, your command of the minutiae of raw is far greater than my own. I don't think I'll flip you on your view, but since we're out of the simple raw thread, I thought it might be useful if I elaborated on the thought process behind my answer there: [...]

That is certainly high praise coming from you, I am honored, and pleased to hear you're familiar with my works. Thank you for popping into elaborate on your Q&A answer as well. :smallsmile:

Onto the topic, so your original Q&A ruling was based on the reading that "creating an undead" means to make one come into being where there wasn't one before, i.e. Undead can't be the template Base Creature because that would not "increase the number of undead in the area".

I do think that "create undead" is quite clearly defined in the rules. From the Corpsecrafter line of feats, we know that is what the relevant Necromancy spells do (wherein "raising" is apparently a distinct thing). We know the Create Spawn ability counts in the same manner, based on the language used in the Libris Mortis chapter on undead propagation. We also know it's separate from summoning because Desecrate says so.

More specifically to the point though, the Spellstiched template does explicitly refer to the one who did the Spellstitching as "the creator of the creature", and you can only spellstitch things that are already animate undead, so rule wise I really don't see any wiggle room to argue that the Spellstitch-er isn't by all rights considered the creator of the Spellstitch-ee, even if Undeath happens to be a pre-existing condition here.

The way this makes sense as far as I can tell is that Undead Mastery simply doesn't care what state the base creature is in before the undead creation process. Some undead production methods need living base creatures that are then killed in the process and come back undead (e.g. most Spawn creation). Other methods need a corpse, or multiple corpses as base creatures, which are then subject to magic to make an undead (e.g. animate dead). Then there is stuff like the Nightshades, which were never living things to begin with, and Orcus know how they're created...

Spellstiched is simply a case where you create an undead by using an already animate undead as the base creature. I don't think it's even unique in this, Orcus-blooded is in the same vein... Swarm-Shifter too, though how to acquire isn't clear... Zin-Carla and Juju-Zobmie might count.



I personally can't decide. But for a different reason. I personally believe (and the people I play with irl tend to agree) when you apply an undead template to a creature you are simply modifying the base creature. You did not (usually) create the creature, rather you modified an existing one. When you create a ghoul it's not just some ghoul, but a ghoul that bares the resemblance, of and could regain the memories of "Bob". I believe from a role play protective that if "Bob's" wife saw the ghoulish "Bob" she would recognize him. He is truly different, but still "Bob". In order to bring "Bob" back you must first destroy this undead version of him and then cast resurrection. Because "Bob" is here, just trapped in this new form. The necromancer (usually) does not create "Bob" but they did create the undead version of "Bob" and thus should totally apply the abilities (which is normal) However you can use ALL the same logic for spellstitched, yet I personally would not say that it counted as created, yet could not quantify a reason for that.

Ps: most forms of undead that a necromancer might become he would already be creating himself. Like the lich ascension.

I think your problem is divorcing the idea of "Undead Bob" from "Spellstiched Undead Bob" in the same manner you have to divorce "living Bob" form "undead Bob" prior. In both cases you're using the previous "Bob" as an ingredient and doing necromantic modifications to change it, and per the rules that change qualifies as "create".

The second modification may not include a "Type changes to Undead" stage, but Undead Mastery never states that you need to change something non-undead into an undead, just that you have to create an undead. Spellstiched just so happens to use an undead as the base creature for its undead creation.

To use a Marvel analogy, Dr Erskine may not have created Steve Rogers, but he certainly created Captain America.

[Goaty14]

I agree with Venger here.

Yes, you may have created a new creature (i.e: requiring a different stat block), but you have not created an undead. If you had created an undead with the template then you'd see something like "Type: Changes to undead". Here is what I'm arguing: The template does not change the creature's type to undead, thus, while making a new creature, is not making a new undead.

Oh, but if you *somehow* apply a template that changes the type to undead to an existing undead (Ghoul -> Vampire? o.O), then I would agree that you are making a new undead and it would apply, but that's just theoretically.

[Venger]

That is certainly high praise coming from you, I am honored, and pleased to hear you're familiar with my works. Thank you for popping into elaborate on your Q&A answer as well. :smallsmile:

My pleasure.



Onto the topic, so your original Q&A ruling was based on the reading that "creating an undead" means to make one come into being where there wasn't one before, i.e. Undead can't be the template Base Creature because that would not "increase the number of undead in the area".

I do think that "create undead" is quite clearly defined in the rules. From the Corpsecrafter line of feats, we know that is what the relevant Necromancy spells do (wherein "raising" is apparently a distinct thing). We know the Create Spawn ability counts in the same manner, based on the language used in the Libris Mortis chapter on undead propagation. We also know it's separate from summoning because Desecrate says so.
So far, we agree.


More specifically to the point though, the Spellstiched template does explicitly refer to the one who did the Spellstitching as "the creator of the creature", and you can only spellstitch things that are already animate undead, so rule wise I really don't see any wiggle room to argue that the Spellstitch-er isn't by all rights considered the creator of the Spellstitch-ee, even if Undeath happens to be a pre-existing condition here.
I see. So you're talking specifically about spellstitched, and aren't talking about other templates that can be applied to undead, such as vampire lord, swarmshifter, or evolved undead activating undead mastery.

I guess that makes sense, since you've already specified you're not looking to stack undead mastery on top of itself.


The way this makes sense as far as I can tell is that Undead Mastery simply doesn't care what state the base creature is in before the undead creation process. Some undead production methods need living base creatures that are then killed in the process and come back undead (e.g. most Spawn creation). Other methods need a corpse, or multiple corpses as base creatures, which are then subject to magic to make an undead (e.g. animate dead). Then there is stuff like the Nightshades, which were never living things to begin with, and Orcus know how they're created...

Spellstiched is simply a case where you create an undead by using an already animate undead as the base creature. I don't think it's even unique in this, Orcus-blooded is in the same vein... Swarm-Shifter too, though how to acquire isn't clear... Zin-Carla and Juju-Zobmie might count.
So, by your reading, the talontar blightlord who infected someone, should he have undead mastery somehow, would apply that (and corpsecrafter et al) to any juju zombies he created. Is that right? That makes sense.

If your reading doesn't create infinite loops, (I assumed you'd say it stuck in the case of evolved undead or similar) then I don't really see a problem with it raw.

[Jowgen]

Here is what I'm arguing: The template does not change the creature's type to undead, thus, while making a new creature, is not making a new undead.

The issue I see here is that Undead Mastery doesn't mention that the creation needs to come with a type change. It would be dysfunctional actually, since not all Undead are created from a base creature with a type to change (e.g. Bonespur requires non-specific skeletal remains).

The only requirement is that the Dread Necromancer create an undead creature, and the Spellstitched template's entry on Creating a Spellstitched Creature specifically refers to the Spellstitch-er as the Spellstich-ees creator, so that requirement seems to be very much met.


Oh, but if you *somehow* apply a template that changes the type to undead to an existing undead (Ghoul -> Vampire? o.O), then I would agree that you are making a new undead and it would apply, but that's just theoretically.

A Ghoul Dread Necromancer 8 could cast Alter Self or any other relevant Polymorph subschool spell on themselves. Or use some other temporary type-changing method to become a legal recipient of any number of undead templates, which would then arguably remain. There ought to be a bunch of ways.

Personally, I would only consider those valid that use one of the established undead creation methods, i.e. necromancy spells that create undead, create spawn abilties, and anything that applies an undead template. So basically, I don't think Polymophing would count, even if it changes Ghoul -> Vampire.


I see. So you're talking specifically about spellstitched, and aren't talking about other templates that can be applied to undead, such as vampire lord, swarmshifter, or evolved undead activating undead mastery.

I guess that makes sense, since you've already specified you're not looking to stack undead mastery on top of itself.

Well, Vampire Lord and Evolved undead are acquired by circumstance rather than through individual effort, so those two are right out. Swarmshifter to my knowledge never explains how one would go about applying it (and is LA - ), so that'll depend on a given DM chooses to handle it. With any other template, it'll depend...

In any case though, I just don't think Undead Mastery can be applied multiple times, regardelss of recreation. They're all numerical bonuses from the same source; the Undead Mastery ability.



So, by your reading, the talontar blightlord who infected someone, should he have undead mastery somehow, would apply that (and corpsecrafter et al) to any juju zombies he created. Is that right? That makes sense.

Now that's an interesting case that. It's the Blightspawned's own Undead Transformation (su) ability that applies Juju Zombie to itself, rather than the Blight Touch ability of the Dread Necromancer 8 Cleric 7 Talontar Blightlord 3 ( :smallannoyed: ) who created it, so I don't think that would work. I mean, fluff-wise there is an argument to be made it it's the Blightlord's disease strain, i.e. that Undead Transformation ability is part of the effect of blight touch, but I don't think it holds up in rules court.

However, a Dread Necromancer 8 that contracted that Talona's Blight and became a blightspawned would then get to apply Undead Mastery to all the Spawn it created and itself once it fails against Undead Transformation.


If your reading doesn't create infinite loops, (I assumed you'd say it stuck in the case of evolved undead or similar) then I don't really see a problem with it raw.

As mentioned, I don't think the rules allow for a creature to benefit from Undead Mastery more than once, even with repeated valid template acquisition (Evovled being a non-starter anycase since there is no creator iirc), and I don't see any loop potential any case.

At best, all this does is give Dread Necromancer's who are already undead a way to apply their own undead upgrading know how to themselves, which I feel should be a given anycase.

[XionUnborn01]

My hang up with this is that I've always read the line in templates that says "creating a X" as being to the player/DM. AS in creating the stat block, not the I'm game act of spawning/summoning/etc an undead.

To me your character isn't creating the spellstitched monster, he's spellstitching a creature.

I hope that makes sense.

[Venger]

A Ghoul Dread Necromancer 8 could cast Alter Self or any other relevant Polymorph subschool spell on themselves. Or use some other temporary type-changing method to become a legal recipient of any number of undead templates, which would then arguably remain. There ought to be a bunch of ways.
Interesting.

Setting undeadness aside for a second (ignoring that most undead besides liches can't use polymorph effects, and polymorph, being keyed off alter self explicitly cannot apply templates, such as zombie, skeleton, vampire, etc)

would you say that you could use polymorph to temporarily qualify for other templates?

e.g. human transforms into a dragon and then takes the xorvintaal template, forsaking his "spellcasting" and getting those powers. you're saying he keeps them when the spell wears off and he's human again?

that's certainly interesting, and like doing the wight thing, unassailable raw, but I wouldn't expect to ever see it allowed in actual play.


Personally, I would only consider those valid that use one of the established undead creation methods, i.e. necromancy spells that create undead, create spawn abilties, and anything that applies an undead template. So basically, I don't think Polymophing would count, even if it changes Ghoul -> Vampire.

If you're a master of shrouds, and you have one of your shadows kill someone, creating a spawn, are you the creator for the purposes of undead mastery?



In any case though, I just don't think Undead Mastery can be applied multiple times, regardelss of recreation. They're all numerical bonuses from the same source; the Undead Mastery ability.
No disagreement here.


Now that's an interesting case that. It's the Blightspawned's own Undead Transformation (su) ability that applies Juju Zombie to itself, rather than the Blight Touch ability of the Dread Necromancer 8 Cleric 7 Talontar Blightlord 3 ( :smallannoyed: ) who created it, so I don't think that would work. I mean, fluff-wise there is an argument to be made it it's the Blightlord's disease strain, i.e. that Undead Transformation ability is part of the effect of blight touch, but I don't think it holds up in rules court.

Interesting.

At what point does something cross over from your action to the victim's?

If you zap someone with enervation and kill them with negative levels, they come back tomorrow night as a wight.

In that case, I assume you would agree that the caster of enervation is the creator of the wight.

If you reverse pickpocket a bunch of holy or unholy shurikens into their possession and kill them with negative levels in this fashion, are you still the creator?

If you know he's planning to buy 1 holy/unholy shuriken, and reverse pickpocket his hd-1 shuriken onto his person, are you the creator then?

If not, then at what point does the victim usurp agency from you and become the creator? Is this possible at all?

If you affect someone with Talona's blight and they willingly reduce their con to die earlier, are they the creator? or are you since you gave them the disease?

as an aside, jeez, is talontar blightlord/blightspawned/juju zombie a weird area of the rules. What's up with this template that is largely intended to come as the result of another template, which will probably be primarily motivated by talontar blightlords, even though juju zombies can technically be created independently as well, to make things more complicated.


As mentioned, I don't think the rules allow for a creature to benefit from Undead Mastery more than once, even with repeated valid template acquisition (Evovled being a non-starter anycase since there is no creator iirc), and I don't see any loop potential any case.
Agreed


At best, all this does is give Dread Necromancer's who are already undead a way to apply their own undead upgrading know how to themselves, which I feel should be a given anycase.
Yeah, like I said, I think it's fine balance-wise, I just didn't think it was raw earlier, but it makes sense to me now

[Goaty14]

The issue I see here is that Undead Mastery doesn't mention that the creation needs to come with a type change. It would be dysfunctional actually, since not all Undead are created from a base creature with a type to change (e.g. Bonespur requires non-specific skeletal remains).

Yes, but Undead Mastery also doesn't define what creating an undead means, so the debate here circles around what creating an undead is, not if a non-template creature is a different creature than one with a template (which is what your references in the OP certainly seem to suggest). My argument is that a type change via template (or, as you point out, creating an undead from a non-creature) constitutes creation, neither of which spellstitched fulfills.


The only requirement is that the Dread Necromancer create an undead creature, and the Spellstitched template's entry on Creating a Spellstitched Creature specifically refers to the Spellstitch-er as the Spellstich-ees creator, so that requirement seems to be very much met.

See above (TL;DR we're actually arguing over how "creation" is defined). Look, I can agree that you are making a new creature, who very much happens to be an undead. However, you are not creating an undead because the type would've changed via the template.

Look at it this way: If I applied the Dark Template (ToM) to a Skeleton, would it be considered "creating an undead" for undead mastery (presuming the skeleton did not already have UM already applied)? I'd assume under your interpretation that this works because
-Has the "Creating an X creature text"
-Is different from a normal skeleton ("Dark Skeleton" =/= "Skeleton")

(Accidental Straw Man Fallacy), but what's so different from the Dark Skeleton and your example?


My hang up with this is that I've always read the line in templates that says "creating a X" as being to the player/DM. AS in creating the stat block, not the I'm game act of spawning/summoning/etc an undead.

AKA: No, because the "creating" text in the template is for creating the stat block OOC, not IC.

[Falontani]

popping back in for the ghoul thing; while strictly 3.5 ghouls do not work for this I will use a Wight for my example. Take a Half Elf. He took some levels, and then died by the use of another wight's Create Spawn. He rose as a wight. He takes the feat: Human Heritage (which he still qualifies for, if you have argument that he doesn't qualify then before he died he took 2 levels of Half Elf Paragon, and 2 levels of Human paragon, and finally post death took 2 levels of Emancipated Spawn) Boom I'm a Wight with the Humanoid type! Take 10 levels of Walker in the Waste, boom your a Wight Dry Lich. Take 20 levels of Death Master. Boom your a Wight Dry Lich Lich. Take Demilich. Congradulations on being a Wight Dry Lich Lich Demi Lich. (You can do this whole process without being a Wight and instead just becoming a Lich through the normal method before taking Human Heritage to become a Lich Dry Lich Lich Demi Lich. Think of all the phylacteries!)

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Secondly, the rules text detailing how to apply the Spellstitched template is literally titled "Creating a Spellstitched creature" (with every other template following the same titling convention). Third, the section on Spellstitched Spell-like abilities explicitly refers to whoever applies the template to the undead in question as "The creator of a spellstitched creature".


It look to like you are creating a spellstitched creature, not an undead.

If we will use REW only then you shouldn't get it.

BTW:
As a DM I will allow you to use UM on every undead you modify, because it is what I think UM need to do.

[Jowgen]

would you say that you could use polymorph to temporarily qualify for other templates? [...] e.g. human transforms into a dragon and then takes the xorvintaal template, forsaking his "spellcasting" and getting those powers. you're saying he keeps them when the spell wears off and he's human again?

There are to my knowledge no rules for loosing a template due to no longer meeting its prerequesties (not even Saint has that), so speaking RAW, it is just as legal as temporarily changing type to become a legal target for a spell, which only checks legality at the time of casting so the effect of which remains after the effect that made the application legal expires.

Personally, I think this falls into the kind of cheese category I myself wouldn't let fly, or expect any reasonable DM to either. But yes, it is technically legal as far as I can tell.


If you're a master of shrouds, and you have one of your shadows kill someone, creating a spawn, are you the creator for the purposes of undead mastery? [...]

At what point does something cross over from your action to the victim's?

If you zap someone with enervation and kill them with negative levels, they come back tomorrow night as a wight.

In that case, I assume you would agree that the caster of enervation is the creator of the wight.

If you reverse pickpocket a bunch of holy or unholy shurikens into their possession and kill them with negative levels in this fashion, are you still the creator?

If you know he's planning to buy 1 holy/unholy shuriken, and reverse pickpocket his hd-1 shuriken onto his person, are you the creator then?

If not, then at what point does the victim usurp agency from you and become the creator? Is this possible at all?

If you affect someone with Talona's blight and they willingly reduce their con to die earlier, are they the creator? or are you since you gave them the disease?

I'd say no to the Shadow (you might control the Shadow, but it doesn't have Undead Mastery, you do).

I'd say yes to Enervation, as you're actively applying the negative level, and Wight-ification is an explicit effect of Wight-ification.

I'd say no to the Shurikens, because they become attended items of the target, meaning it's technically them killing/wighting themself.

The victim Blightspawned is always the creator of the victim JujuZombie, as the Undead Transformation ability is the Blightspawned's. And yes, that whole set of rules is a convoluted mess.


Yeah, like I said, I think it's fine balance-wise, I just didn't think it was raw earlier, but it makes sense to me now

Well I feel accomplished then :smallsmile:


Yes, but Undead Mastery also doesn't define what creating an undead means, so the debate here circles around what creating an undead is, not if a non-template creature is a different creature than one with a template (which is what your references in the OP certainly seem to suggest). My argument is that a type change via template (or, as you point out, creating an undead from a non-creature) constitutes creation, neither of which spellstitched fulfills.

I think the argument over what constitutes undead creation in general is largely moot in regards to Spellstitched specifically, as that particular template explcitly states that whoever applies the template counts has having created the resulting creature. Actually found another line in support of that: "Spellstitched creatures can be created only by a wizard or sorcerer with the Craft Wondrous Item feat and of sufficient level to cast the spells to be imbued within the undead’s body."

Going beyond Spellstitched, I do think it does depend on the specifics of the given template or other undead creation method whether a specific creature can be credited as that undead's creator. There are just too many specific spells and processes to generalize (case in point: the mess that is Blightspawn)



Look at it this way: If I applied the Dark Template (ToM) to a Skeleton, would it be considered "creating an undead" for undead mastery (presuming the skeleton did not already have UM already applied)? I'd assume under your interpretation that this works because
-Has the "Creating an X creature text"
-Is different from a normal skeleton ("Dark Skeleton" =/= "Skeleton")

(Accidental Straw Man Fallacy), but what's so different from the Dark Skeleton and your example?

Dark's an interesting example, as you can either acquire it from the Cormyr adventure magical location of the Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis. The magical location can't have undead mastery. The Collar is command word activated, which iirc means that the one who activates the item counts as the effect originator, so lets run with the assumption that an undead dread necromancer 8 activates it on themselves.

The Dread Necromancer is using an effect worded as "transforms you into a being of shadow". The Dark Template text doesn't mention a creator or reference a creation process either, so I think in this case I think the template application is defined as transformation rather than creation, unlike with Spellstitched.

But for the sake of your argument, lets assume some other non-undead specific template were applied to an undead by the hands of a dread necromancer 8, and also assume that that template specified that the Dread Necromancer was to be considered the templated creature's creator.

I would argue it works. In this hypothetical, the Dread Necromancer has created a creature, and that creature is an undead. The fact that the undead nature of the templated creature stems from the base creature rather than the creation process shouldn't make a difference rule wise, as the result was still the creation of a creature that is undead.

Although in this case I could very much see someone disallowing it purely because the fluff/RAI doesn't fit as well as it does with Spellstitched. Or disallow it because, unlike Spellstitched, our imaginary Dark-like template doesn't define the resulting creature as an Undead.


popping back in for the ghoul thing; while strictly 3.5 ghouls do not work for this I will use a Wight for my example. Take a Half Elf. He took some levels, and then died by the use of another wight's Create Spawn. He rose as a wight. He takes the feat: Human Heritage (which he still qualifies for, if you have argument that he doesn't qualify then before he died he took 2 levels of Half Elf Paragon, and 2 levels of Human paragon, and finally post death took 2 levels of Emancipated Spawn) Boom I'm a Wight with the Humanoid type! Take 10 levels of Walker in the Waste, boom your a Wight Dry Lich. Take 20 levels of Death Master. Boom your a Wight Dry Lich Lich. Take Demilich. Congradulations on being a Wight Dry Lich Lich Demi Lich. (You can do this whole process without being a Wight and instead just becoming a Lich through the normal method before taking Human Heritage to become a Lich Dry Lich Lich Demi Lich. Think of all the phylacteries!)

You are a mad man. A mad man I say. :smalltongue:


It look to like you are creating a spellstitched creature, not an undead.

If we will use REW only then you shouldn't get it.

BTW:
As a DM I will allow you to use UM on every undead you modify, because it is what I think UM need to do.

"Spellstitched creatures are undead creatures" - First words of the Spellstitched creature entry

Based on the above, I don't think the distinction can be brought to bear in this particular instance.

Also, I just realised that not a single poster so far has argued that Undead Mastery-ing Spellstitched shouldn't be allowed to work. Some have questioned whether the RAW supports it, but that's it. This doesn't usually happen in threads I start...

[Goaty14]

I think the argument over what constitutes undead creation in general is largely moot in regards to Spellstitched specifically, as that particular template explcitly states that whoever applies the template counts has having created the resulting creature. Actually found another line in support of that: "Spellstitched creatures can be created only by a wizard or sorcerer with the Craft Wondrous Item feat and of sufficient level to cast the spells to be imbued within the undead’s body."

No, it doesn't *just* matter that the DN has created the resulting creature. It matters that the DN has created an undead creature.

Anywho, you can't possibly be creating an undead creature because the template requires that the subject already be an undead (and thus already created). Think of it as modifying an existing undead.


"Spellstitched creatures are undead creatures" - First words of the Spellstitched creature entry

Based on the above, I don't think the distinction can be brought to bear in this particular instance.

They are undead, but they are not created (by the template) undead. If spell-stitched did create the undead (read: Type Change: -> Undead), then it would apply, but it doesn't.


Also, I just realised that not a single poster so far has argued that Undead Mastery-ing Spellstitched shouldn't be allowed to work. Some have questioned whether the RAW supports it, but that's it. This doesn't usually happen in threads I start...

How you ask a question in a RAW thread, get RAW answers, and then get really confused is beyond me. Why would somebody argue that it shouldn't? For balance?

I'd rate applying it to yourself somewhere around 96,000 GP. 64k base from as if you did the STR/DEX as custom magic items (16k base, x2 slotless, 2 "items" = 64k) and the +2 HP is effectivley +4 CON, except undead have their own special rules for FORT saves. I digress, but that's a lotta dolla for nothing.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Many thanks to Jowgen & Contributors for this interesting discussion. Particularly happy that you remembered the Talontar Blightlord, which is 100% certified the best way to cause a zombie plant animal plague.


Anywho, you can't possibly be creating an undead creature because the template requires that the subject already be an undead (and thus already created). Think of it as modifying an existing undead.
Arguably, modifying an existing undead is also creating a new undead. I mean, I get your point, but it's not very strong. You can read "create an undead" as "create something, that happens to be undead", and, as you do, "create additional undeath", that is, "the undead just created is the difference between the number of undead that existed before, and the number that existed after". I don't think that reading is the most natural. Granted, creating an undead from an undead is a mathematician's (or philosopher's) answer, but that does still mean it's valid.

[Goaty14]

Arguably, modifying an existing undead is also creating a new undead.

Yes and no. Yes, you are making a new creature that requires a different stat-block than the base creature. No, a Spellstitched Vampire is still a Vampire (as in, a spellstitched vampire is not entirely a new creature, because it will still die to a wooden stake through the heart). As previously mentioned, if you managed to make a Ghoul into a Vampire (or any other template that explicitly type-changed an undead into an undead), then that argument would be right, but it isn't in this case.


You can read "create an undead" as "create something, that happens to be undead"

EDIT:That's how you read it. I'm reading it as "create an undead, that wasn't already an undead", because if it was already an undead, you didn't create it, somebody else did, or you did (and UM has already been applied, and this whole argument is moot).

...but if that thing was already an undead, had no "undeadness" added in the process (blah blah, if it did, the template would change type to undead), did you really create an undead? Sure, your spellstitched vampire may be different than a normal vampire, but you've just modified an existing one.

It's as if you took a clay vase, fingerpainted all over it, and then declared you created a new design to sculpt clay vases. Yes, you are the creator (of the new product, not the vase). Yes, it is different than other clay vases of its design. No, it is not a new design for clay vases.


"create additional undeath"

This is RAW, where? If the template gave the already-undead creature the undead type (which would be weird -- why do you have to apply the undead type to an already-undead creature?), then I'd agree that Undead Mastery applies to it. As I said before, it'd be cool if it worked that way, but it doesn't.


that is, "the undead just created is the difference between the number of undead that existed before, and the number that existed after". I don't think that reading is the most natural

W-well I don't think your reading is the most natural either, hmph! (Are you arguing RAI in a RAW thread?)

Also that's an awfully complicated way of saying "The new undead was not already an undead"

[BloodSnake'sCha]

"Spellstitched creatures are undead creatures" - First words of the Spellstitched creature entry

Based on the above, I don't think the distinction can be brought to bear in this particular instance.

Also, I just realised that not a single poster so far has argued that Undead Mastery-ing Spellstitched shouldn't be allowed to work. Some have questioned whether the RAW supports it, but that's it. This doesn't usually happen in threads I start...

Ok.
If you are creating a Spellstitched creature and a Spellstitched creature is an undead then you are creating an undead.

UM need you to create an undead.
You do create an undead.

The Spellstitched should get the UM.

That all the RAW I can see.

[ExLibrisMortis]

...but if that thing was already an undead, had no "undeadness" added in the process (blah blah, if it did, the template would change type to undead), did you really create an undead?
I just told you, yes. You're just repeating yourself. It's a straightforward question: What are you creating? Spellstitched vampire. What creature type does it have? Undead. What did you create? Undead.


It's as if you took a clay vase, fingerpainted all over it, and then declared you created a new design to sculpt clay vases.
You are clearly making a mistake here, by saying that fingerpainting isn't sculpting, therefore spellstitching is not creating. These pairs do not have the same relation to one another. The first pair consists of two verbs that are specific forms of creation, whereas the second pair consists of a specific and a general verb. In other words: spellstitching is creating, and you create an undead (by definition, because you must start with an undead base, and the template can't change that).


This is RAW, where?
Exactly. It's not, and your argument makes no sense without it. You say that you would let Undead Mastery work on a template that adds the undead type, but that contradicts your own argument, because the "didn't create an undead" argument still applies. Even if the template specified that type changes to undead, "a Spellstitched Vampire is still a Vampire" applies.


W-well I don't think your reading is the most natural either, hmph! (Are you arguing RAI in a RAW thread?)
No. That's how a linguist tells you "I don't think that means what you think it means".

[Goaty14]

I just told you, yes. You're just repeating yourself. It's a straightforward question: What are you creating? Spellstitched vampire. What creature type does it have? Undead. What did you create? Undead.

(That's how somebody asks you not to answer, via rhetorical question). You did not create an undead. The end product may have been an undead, but you have done nothing to make the creature that way


You are clearly making a mistake here, by saying that fingerpainting isn't sculpting, therefore spellstitching is not creating. These pairs do not have the same relation to one another. The first pair consists of two verbs that are specific forms of creation, whereas the second pair consists of a specific and a general verb. In other words: spellstitching is creating, and you create an undead (by definition, because you must start with an undead base, and the template can't change that).

Except I'm not making a mistake, as Sculpting/Fingerpainting are both a form of creation. In addition, spell-stitching is also a form of creation. You did get that painting/spell-stitching and sculpting/creating though. You did create the art on the vase (you did apply the spellstitched template...), but you didn't create the vase (but you didn't create the undead). There may be a difference between the original and the new product (The spellstitched may be different than the original undead), but you haven't sculpted a new piece of pottery (but you did not modify the creature type).


Exactly. It's not, and your argument makes no sense without it. You say that you would let Undead Mastery work on a template that adds the undead type, but that contradicts your own argument, because the "didn't create an undead" argument still applies. Even if the template specified that type changes to undead, "a Spellstitched Vampire is still a Vampire" applies.

I never said "create more undeath". Maybe you imagined I did, or read something else that I said as that.

A spellstitched vampire is still a vampire because spellstitched doesn't change the creature type. Usually when you change the creature type to undead, you stop calling it whatever it was before and start calling it the undead template. I.e "Vampire" instead of "Human Vampire", "Ghoul" instead of "Human Ghoul", etc. Spell-stitched doesn't work like that since it doesn't change to undead type, and already forces the creature to be undead in the first place.

I guess I stand corrected: Changing type to undead on a existing undead shouldn't let UM apply.


No. That's how a linguist tells you "I don't think that means what you think it means".

Then you should have said that before assuming that everybody in the argument was a linguist. That's not even how I read it. I read it as:

EDIT:That's how you read it. I'm reading it as "create an undead, that wasn't already an undead", because if it was already an undead, you didn't create it, somebody else did.

I swear I'm not arguing at this point because I like arguing, I'm arguing because I'm genuinely confused how creation can be defined in such a twisted manner.

[Falontani]

Lets use a different version of creation here. Lets talk about cars. You have a car that someone else created. You laboriously upgrade the car, you switch out the wheels, change the wiring on the stereo system, change 50% of the parts on the engine, give it a paint job, etc etc etc. There was not a new car created, its still the "same" car. However the manufacturer has no place in saying, "I designed this" or "I created this", this lies solely on yourself, the upgrader. The car is still the same, but you have changed the fundamentals and vastly improved it. While doing this you took your knowledge (your corpsecrafter) and you applied it because the original creator couldn't be bothered to.

And no, I have NEVER once thought of comparing undead to cars until today.

[Goaty14]

Lets use a different version of creation here. Lets talk about cars. You have a car that someone else created. You laboriously upgrade the car, you switch out the wheels, change the wiring on the stereo system, change 50% of the parts on the engine, give it a paint job, etc etc etc. There was not a new car created, its still the "same" car. However the manufacturer has no place in saying, "I designed this" or "I created this", this lies solely on yourself, the upgrader. The car is still the same, but you have changed the fundamentals and vastly improved it. While doing this you took your knowledge (your corpsecrafter) and you applied it because the original creator couldn't be bothered to.

Which is a false comparison, because spellstitched doesn't change anything about the base creature. The template instead gives the base undead some extra abilities (spell/turn resistance, SLAs, DR, etc) without replacing its existing abilities. Compare the spellstitched template to something like vampire, which changes how the base creature interacts with positive energy, turning, FORT saves, wooden stakes, running water, etc.

A more accurate comparison would be to take a normal car and to add improvements such as a paint job, a nitro-injection mechanism (if that even exists... :smalltongue:), shiny new decals, rocket boosters, a second gas tank, etc. The manufacturer could still lay claim to the car's design, and, while it is different than the original design, still holds many (if not, all) of the original features.


And no, I have NEVER once thought of comparing undead to cars until today.

I must also admit I have never contemplated comparing undead to pottery until this thread.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You did not create an undead.
You created a spellstitched undead, which is a subcategory of undead, hence you've created an undead, too. If I create a dog, I have also created an animal.


The end product may have been an undead, but you have done nothing to make the creature that way.
That's not required for "create" to apply.


Except I'm not making a mistake
Yes, you are. Your entire line of reasoning rests on the analogy between "painting is not sculpting" (which is true) and "spellstitching is not creating for the purposes of Undead Mastery". "Creating for the purpose of UM" is nothing more than "creating"--no specific action is required. It is a category error to say that "painting" and "sculpting", which are both subcategories of "creating", are analogous to "spellstitching" and "creating an undead for the purposes of UM", because "spellstitching" may be a subcategory of "creating" (and therefore analogous to "painting"), but "creating" is not a subcategory of "creating".


I guess I stand corrected: Changing type to undead on a existing undead shouldn't let UM apply.
Okay, that makes sense.


I swear I'm not arguing at this point because I like arguing, I'm arguing because I'm genuinely confused how creation can be defined in such a twisted manner.
Well, then we both feel that... apparently, we're using a different "create". There are three types I can distinguish right now (one that I'm not sure of).

(1) "To create x" means that the result of the "create" event has has property x. This is my position.
(2) "To create x" means that the result of the "create" event has has property x AND that the "create" event is the cause of property x. This, I think, is your position.
(3) "To create x" means that the result of the "create" event is additional things with property x. This is what I accused you of earlier.

Examples:
(1) Creating a spellstitched ghoul would count as "creating a ghoul", "creating an undead creature", "creating a creature with SLAs", and so on. Any property of the resulting creature at all.
(2) Creating a spellstitched ghoul would not count as "creating a ghoul", but it would count as "creating a creature with SLAs" (because the template adds those).
(3) Creating a spellstitched ghoul would not count as "creating a ghoul", and it would not count as "creating a creature with SLAs" unless the base ghoul did not have SLAs already. If the ghoul already had SLAs, you wouldn't be adding to the pool of things with SLAs.

As you can see, (2) and (3) are more specific than (1), which allows any property, regardless of what it's caused by. To get meaning (2), I would personally use the phrasing "create undeath" (the state of being undead), not "create undead" (the creatures that are undead). It's a subtle difference, but that's what I'd do.


Which is a false comparison, because spellstitched doesn't change anything about the base creature
Adding something to an object is not changing that object? How does that work in the painting-a-vase example above? Adding paint changes the vase.

Again, this is a subtle difference in the meaning of "change". To you, it means "replace a property with another"; to me, it means "make different". Yours is more specific, mine is more general. Nothing wrong either way, but in the case of RAW interpretation, I would go with a general reading; don't add any additional assumptions.

[Nifft]

I'm going to have my next Dread Necromancer dump glitter on a vampire, claim to have created a sparkle-vampire, and demand that the vampire be given bonus hit points per HD.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm going to have my next Dread Necromancer dump glitter on a vampire, claim to have created a sparkle-vampire, and demand that the vampire be given bonus hit points per HD.
I'd allow a sparkle-vampire template, as long as the only benefit is "you're permanently under the effects of glitterdust".

[noob]

I'd allow a sparkle-vampire template, as long as the only benefit is "you're permanently under the effects of glitterdust".
It is a way too much op template: players will all try to have that template to then say to the gm "no we literally can not do stealth therefore any mission with it is invalid for our team"

[Nifft]

I'd allow a sparkle-vampire template, as long as the only benefit is "you're permanently under the effects of glitterdust".

How utterly perfect for Team B ("The Distraction").

[unseenmage]

You created a spellstitched undead, which is a subcategory of undead, hence you've created an undead, too. If I create a dog, I have also created an animal.


That's not required for "create" to apply.


Yes, you are. Your entire line of reasoning rests on the analogy between "painting is not sculpting" (which is true) and "spellstitching is not creating for the purposes of Undead Mastery". "Creating for the purpose of UM" is nothing more than "creating"--no specific action is required. It is a category error to say that "painting" and "sculpting", which are both subcategories of "creating", are analogous to "spellstitching" and "creating an undead for the purposes of UM", because "spellstitching" may be a subcategory of "creating" (and therefore analogous to "painting"), but "creating" is not a subcategory of "creating".


Okay, that makes sense.


Well, then we both feel that... apparently, we're using a different "create". There are three types I can distinguish right now (one that I'm not sure of).

(1) "To create x" means that the result of the "create" event has has property x. This is my position.
(2) "To create x" means that the result of the "create" event has has property x AND that the "create" event is the cause of property x. This, I think, is your position.
(3) "To create x" means that the result of the "create" event is additional things with property x. This is what I accused you of earlier.

Examples:
(1) Creating a spellstitched ghoul would count as "creating a ghoul", "creating an undead creature", "creating a creature with SLAs", and so on. Any property of the resulting creature at all.
(2) Creating a spellstitched ghoul would not count as "creating a ghoul", but it would count as "creating a creature with SLAs" (because the template adds those).
(3) Creating a spellstitched ghoul would not count as "creating a ghoul", and it would not count as "creating a creature with SLAs" unless the base ghoul did not have SLAs already. If the ghoul already had SLAs, you wouldn't be adding to the pool of things with SLAs.

As you can see, (2) and (3) are more specific than (1), which allows any property, regardless of what it's caused by. To get meaning (2), I would personally use the phrasing "create undeath" (the state of being undead), not "create undead" (the creatures that are undead). It's a subtle difference, but that's what I'd do.


Adding something to an object is not changing that object? How does that work in the painting-a-vase example above? Adding paint changes the vase.

Again, this is a subtle difference in the meaning of "change". To you, it means "replace a property with another"; to me, it means "make different". Yours is more specific, mine is more general. Nothing wrong either way, but in the case of RAW interpretation, I would go with a general reading; don't add any additional assumptions.

Very well said and explained. Thank you.

I always appreciate when a Playgrounder describes my line of reasoning alongside their own before I can even elucidate my own.