Do dracolliches advance in age categories?

[redking]

Lets say an adult dragon becomes a dracolich. Is that the end of its advancement by HD (dragon age categories), or can it continue to grow by necromantic processes?

I could have sworn that is the case in 2E. Can anyone give guidance?

[Biggus]

Its type is undead, not dragon, so I don't think it can advance as a dragon. It could advance by class levels though.

[Crake]

Its type is undead, not dragon, so I don't think it can advance as a dragon. It could advance by class levels though.

The advancement section of the Dracolich says "Up to +2 HD", which is the normal range for any given age category of a dragon, so yeah, it would seem like a dracolich cannot advance in age categories, and the same applies to vampiric dragons.

[Another Handle]

No they can't. IIRC Dragons of Faerun even mentioned it as a plot for one dracolich. Though it may have been another book with dracolichs.

[redking]

So when the Cult of the Dragon in the Forgotten Realms setting approaches dragons to become dracoliches, its a terrible deal unless the dragon has a degenerative disease or is already a great wyrm.

[Thurbane]

It may also mean they can't take Dragon only PrCs (Bloodscaled Fury, Disciple of Ashardalon etc.).

Most of these have req of "Race: Any dragon."

You aren't of the Dragon type, but you might still be counted as a dragon for "race" if the DM is willing.

[Remuko]

It may also mean they can't take Dragon only PrCs (Bloodscaled Fury, Disciple of Ashardalon etc.).

Most of these have req of "Race: Any dragon."

You aren't of the Dragon type, but you might still be counted as a dragon for "race" if the DM is willing.

yeah i suppose it will depend if the DM considers subtype enough, as you would be Type: Undead (Augmented Dragon), I believe.

[Crake]

It may also mean they can't take Dragon only PrCs (Bloodscaled Fury, Disciple of Ashardalon etc.).

Most of these have req of "Race: Any dragon."

You aren't of the Dragon type, but you might still be counted as a dragon for "race" if the DM is willing.

It says race not type. A human vampire is still a human by race, a dragon lich is still a dragon by race.

[redking]

It says race not type. A human vampire is still a human by race, a dragon lich is still a dragon by race.

Good point. Is it safe to say that the dracolich dragon type becomes a dragon subtype instead (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?634386-Race-and-racial-subtype)?

[Biggus]

So when the Cult of the Dragon in the Forgotten Realms setting approaches dragons to become dracoliches, its a terrible deal unless the dragon has a degenerative disease or is already a great wyrm.

According to this list (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Dracolich), there's only one dragon younger than ancient who's known to have taken the deal, this is probably why.

[Tzardok]

Good point. Is it safe to say that the dracolich dragon type becomes a dragon subtype instead (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?634386-Race-and-racial-subtype)?

The dracolich's subtype is Augmented Dragon, like with most other templates.

[redking]

The dracolich's subtype is Augmented Dragon, like with most other templates.

What is the functional impact of that? That the dracolich is effectively treated as a dragon whenever it does not conflict directly with its undead type?

[Tzardok]

What is the functional impact of that? That the dracolich is effectively treated as a dragon whenever it does not conflict directly with its undead type?

As far as I know, it's unclear. But that is how I treat the Augmented subtype in my games, yes.

Edit: The SRD has this to say:

A creature receives this subtype whenever something happens to change its original type. Some creatures (those with an inherited template) are born with this subtype; others acquire it when they take on an acquired template. The augmented subtype is always paired with the creature’s original type. A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type.

[hamishspence]

Which raises interesting questions about various things.

Take Bane (dragon) weapons - should they work both on creatures with the "Dragon" type, and creatures with the "augmented Dragon" subtype?

Or, take Favoured Enemy (dragon) - should it work both on creatures with the "Dragon" type, and creatures with the "augmented Dragon" subtype?

[SangoProduction]

Which raises interesting questions about various things.

Take Bane (dragon) weapons - should they work both on creatures with the "Dragon" type, and creatures with the "augmented Dragon" subtype?

Or, take Favoured Enemy (dragon) - should it work both on creatures with the "Dragon" type, and creatures with the "augmented Dragon" subtype?

You could make an argument both ways. But I say no.

An undead dragon fundamentally acts, thinks, and is vulnerable to different things relative to a real dragon. And a dragon whose mentality takes it to dracolichdom is probably already... not typical among dragon kind.

Although there are surface level similarities, there are probably more differences than similarities. Thus the skills (and magic) are not necessarily transferable.


From a purely gameplay perspective, I'd definitely allow a ranger to count dracoliches as dragons, if they had FE (Dragons)... because they are rangers. Cut them some slack.
Also from a purely gameplay perspective, I'd also allow purchased Bane weapons to apply, because... again, it's a martial, cut them some slack. They bought a dragon killer, and you have them face an undead dragon. Come on now.

(But yeah, in the same way a human lich isn't valid for FE (Humanoid - Human). )

Edit: lich, not zombie

[Tzardok]

Zombie is explicitely one of the templates that doesn't give the augmented subtype. Unlike the dracolich, there is no mind and with that no habits or mindset left. No matter how you choose regarding the augmented subtype, zombies aren't applicable.

[SangoProduction]

Zombie is explicitely one of the templates that doesn't give the augmented subtype. Unlike the dracolich, there is no mind and with that no habits or mindset left. No matter how you choose regarding the augmented subtype, zombies aren't applicable.

Sorry lich. But point remains.

[Crake]

Zombie is explicitely one of the templates that doesn't give the augmented subtype. Unlike the dracolich, there is no mind and with that no habits or mindset left. No matter how you choose regarding the augmented subtype, zombies aren't applicable.

I don't see anything in the zombie dragon entry about it explicitly not getting the augmented subtype. The augmented subtype rules say that it's gained any time your type changes, so that's the general rule, and the template doesn't specify otherwise as far as I can see.

[SangoProduction]

I don't see anything in the zombie dragon entry about it explicitly not getting the augmented subtype. The augmented subtype rules say that it's gained any time your type changes, so that's the general rule, and the template doesn't specify otherwise as far as I can see.

He was talking to me. Sorry about the confusion. And it's in there in the PF zombie template. Haven't checked the 3.5 ones.

[hamishspence]

We know it's possible for a creature to "fall into more than one category of favoured enemy"

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm


Favored Enemy (Ex)

If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger’s bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher.

so wouldn't it be kind of logical, for this to cover all cases where one favoured enemy is in the type, and a different favoured enemy is in the subtype?

Take half-dragons. Their type is Dragon, but their subtype is Something Else - a half-dragon giant is a Dragon [Augmented Giant]


A ranger with favored enemy (Dragon) and favoured enemy (Giant) would, one might expect, pick the highest, another ranger with only favoured enemy (Giant) would use that, and a ranger with only favoured enemy (Dragon) would use that.


So, why wouldn't the same apply to Undead (Augmented Dragon)?

[Particle_Man]

This also means that orcs can never find a way to avoid getting beaten up more easily by dwarves. :smallbiggrin:

[Thurbane]

We know it's possible for a creature to "fall into more than one category of favoured enemy"

I always wondered how that worked for Bane weapons.

Say I'm fighting a Devil with a weapon which is both Outsider (evil) and Outsider (lawful) bane, do I get 4d6 extra damage? If yes, I'm assuming the extra enhancement bonus wouldn't stack, or would it?

Race doesn't seem to be a defined game term. Closest I could find was Racial Bonus and Racial Hit Die, in the glossary.


racial bonus
A bonus granted because of the culture a particular creature was brought up in or because of innate characteristics of that type of creature. If a creature's race changes (for instance, if it dies and is reincarnated), it loses all racial bonuses it had in its previous form.

Source: PHB

racial Hit Die
The Hit Dice a monster has by virtue of what type of creature it is. Hit Dice gained from taking class levels are not racial Hit Dice.

Source: MM, MM3

Personally, as a DM I would allow Dracoliches to still count as being "Race: Dragon" for reqs.

So I guess that's one road for Dracoliches to go down, when they can no longer advance by RHD.

[hamishspence]

I always wondered how that worked for Bane weapons.

Say I'm fighting a Devil with a weapon which is both Outsider (evil) and Outsider (lawful) bane, do I get 4d6 extra damage? If yes, I'm assuming the extra enhancement bonus wouldn't stack, or would it?

I think you get the 4d6, yes. I'm not so sure about the extra enhancement bonus.


Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus.


The "normal enhancement bonus" of a, for example, a +1 outsider bane weapon is +1. Each bane property would check the "normal enhancement bonus" separately, and so, each time, the bonus would be +3, not +5. Same would apply to a +1 dragon bane, undead bane weapon - it would be +3 not +5 vs Dracoliches, but it would do 4d6 not 2d6 extra damage.



However, since it's Outsider comma evil, whereas the Favoured Enemy table is Outsider - brackets - evil - does that mean that it works on evil-aligned outsiders instead of only evil (subtyped) Outsiders (which count as evil-aligned anyway for magic purposes, so it'll work on them too)?


If so, that would suggest that an evil aasimar, or genasi, or whatever, takes the full effects of Bane, even though they're not a fiend.

[Thurbane]

I wonder how the capstone of Disciple of Ashardalon works with Dracoliches?


Fiendish Perfection (Ex): At 12th level, a disciple of Ashardalon's bond with its demonic spirit is complete and perfect. The dragon now has the half-fiend template and becomes an outsider rather than a dragon.

Do they become an Outsider with Con --. There is some precedent for that type of thing: Corrupted Flesh Golem (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20040904a)

Or does that capstone simply not take effect, due to the wording "The dragon now has the half-fiend template and becomes an outsider rather than a dragon."?

[Remuko]

I wonder how the capstone of Disciple of Ashardalon works with Dracoliches?



Do they become an Outsider with Con --. There is some precedent for that type of thing: Corrupted Flesh Golem (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20040904a)

Or does that capstone simply not take effect, due to the wording "The dragon now has the half-fiend template and becomes an outsider rather than a dragon."?

idk about rules, but I dont consider undead to lose their Con score. Having "Con -" is a function of undead type. Change type and your con returns to its pre-undead state. And since in your question youre getting half fiend as part of this change you would add +2 from the template to the original pre-undead Con score.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Do dracoliches even qualify for DoAshardalon? They don't have a heart anymore to bind the fiendish spirit to. I would say you could only take new levels of DoA before becoming a lich‚ and if you already have the capstone... Well you become Undead and lose your Con.

[Tzardok]

In cases like that I like to look at Savage Species and its hierarchy of types as a guideline. It divides the types into tiers by, for lack of a better term, "specialness", and a creature's type can only be overwritten by something in a higher tier. The highest tier are outsiders and undead, making them usually incompatible.

[mattie_p]

I wonder how the capstone of Disciple of Ashardalon works with Dracoliches?

Do they become an Outsider with Con --. There is some precedent for that type of thing: Corrupted Flesh Golem (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20040904a)

Or does that capstone simply not take effect, due to the wording "The dragon now has the half-fiend template and becomes an outsider rather than a dragon."?

You brought this creature up before in the RAW Q&A thread. I didn't engage there because that thread is not really for debate and it was a side-point anyway to your question regarding warforged preparation of divine spells. And it wouldn't be the first sample creature to unintentionally break the rules. Sometimes WotC even deliberately (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20060407a) broke (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20070401a) the rules in the name of fun.


idk about rules, but I dont consider undead to lose their Con score. Having "Con -" is a function of undead type. Change type and your con returns to its pre-undead state. And since in your question youre getting half fiend as part of this change you would add +2 from the template to the original pre-undead Con score.

As a house rule that might work for your table, and I'm not saying don't do it. But do you have a citation for this?


In cases like that I like to look at Savage Species and its hierarchy of types as a guideline. It divides the types into tiers by, for lack of a better term, "specialness", and a creature's type can only be overwritten by something in a higher tier. The highest tier are outsiders and undead, making them usually incompatible.

The hierarchy of types may have been useful, but the 3.5 version of the rules did away with it. You can create a zombie of a tiefling corpse, for example.

I bring all this up because while the template might be legally applied, sometimes there are unintended consequences for making a legal move that results in ... suboptimal results.

Let's use that corrupted flesh golem as an example. Monster Manual pages 291-293 describes the step-by-step process for adding a template. Near as I can tell they did that correctly, in that they did not adjust the CON score - because the template didn't tell them to do so. The SRD has rules for non-abilities. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities) The first line says
Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution has no body or no metabolism. The glossary in the monster manual calls out golems of creatures with no metabolism. So here's the issue. The corrupted golem is corporeal, it has a body. Aberrations, per type, (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#aberrationType) eat, sleep, and breathe, so they have a metabolism. The only option that remains is that they are not living creatures, but dead. Applying that template should have killed them immediately. That's probably almost certainly some unintended consequences of applying the template but there it is.

So Thurbane, to answer your question in this thread. I would rule a dracolich could not be initiated into the Disciple of Ashardalon, as it could not meet the special requirement. But if it was a member when it became a dracolich, it could continue taking levels. I don't advise it to take the last level, however, because becoming a Native Outsider requires a metabolism.

[hamishspence]

Do dracoliches even qualify for DoAshardalon? They don't have a heart anymore to bind the fiendish spirit to.

Just like liches, dracoliches vary enormously in decayed-ness. Some are skeletons. Some are almost indistinguishable from living dragons, except for the eyes.



Sometimes WotC even deliberately (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20060407a) broke (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20070401a) the rules in the name of fun.

IMO it only "doesn't make sense" to apply the half-dragon template to a dragon of the same colour. No "Half-blue dragon, blue dragons". The fact that dragons sometimes hybridise with dragons of a different type, has been fairly consistent in D&D.

[mattie_p]

IMO it only "doesn't make sense" to apply the half-dragon template to a dragon of the same colour. No "Half-blue dragon, blue dragons". The fact that dragons sometimes hybridise with dragons of a different type, has been fairly consistent in D&D.
Well someone did that too in the villainous competition that made me check the interaction of CON -- on an aberration. I ruled their flight speed was reduced to legally take a second breath weapon, and then the breath weapons were both lost by application of yet another template.

It was a very weird round

[Remuko]

As a house rule that might work for your table, and I'm not saying don't do it. But do you have a citation for this?

Nope, as I alluded to at the start of my comment. I think what happens to an undead if its type is changed is undefined, which makes rule 0 mandatory.

Though my logic is based on how undead characters can be resurrected to how they were before becoming undead, which I supposed doesnt explicitly say they return to their old Con score, but I've never seen anyone assume otherwise. And if a party member turned into an undead is destroyed and then resurrected as a no longer undead and gets their Con score back, I see no reason any type change from something with a - stat to something that doesnt inherently have a - stat wouldnt return the - stat to what it was before becoming - (if they had a score for that stat beforehand. tho i believe most cases where its expected they didn't, like awakening constructs and plants etc, it tells you to roll for the stat)

[Thurbane]

You brought this creature up before in the RAW Q&A thread. I didn't engage there because that thread is not really for debate and it was a side-point anyway to your question regarding warforged preparation of divine spells.

The Corrupted Flesh Golem was brought to my attention in this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?544157), which was about living creature types having a non-ability for Con.

I won't derail this thread any further, but you can see the discussion that was had there: suffice to say, the RAW isn't 100% airtight one way or the other.

[hamishspence]

The "Nonabilities" rules do stress that a living creature must have a Constitution:


Constitution
Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution has no body or no metabolism. It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. The creature is also immune to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain, and automatically fails Constitution checks. A creature with no Constitution cannot tire and thus can run indefinitely without tiring (unless the creature’s description says it cannot run).