D&D 3.5 Vampires vs Sacred Weapon

[Almus Rayne]

Hello everyone, so I am currently working on a character who is a vampire that hunters and kills other vampires and undead. However there is a conflict I discovered which I cannot find an answer to anywhere.

For the weapon enchantment "Sacred" which adds an additional 1d6 dmg to undead creatures or 2d6 to evil outsiders, it states that if an undead character tries to use a sacred weapon it also deals 1 point of CHA dmg / round to that user. But it only states "undead" in general.

Now vampires in all their many resistances are immune to ability damage effects. So there in lies the conflict. Does a sacred weapon only deal CHA dmg or other kinds of undead (Like a zombie or a lich?) or does this apply to vampires also even though this is something they are stated to be specifically immune to?

- - - - -

Also I couldn't find a prestige class for an undead who hunts other undead. If anyone knows of anything like this (That's not 4e, or 5e) then I'd appreciate it if you could let me know.

[hamishspence]

All undead are immune to ability damage to their physical scores:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType

Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.

Vampires, as far as I can tell, have no special immunity to damage to their mental scores:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm

All undead are also immune to ability drain, but not ability damage.

[Anthrowhale]

Vampires, as far as I can tell, have no special immunity to damage to their mental scores:

Since constitution is a nonability (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities), vampires (and undead) are supposed to be immune to mental ability damage by default.

This is just a default though---if the sacred item ability specifically states that it damage undead charisma, then that takes precedence.

[Tzardok]

Since constitution is a nonability (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities), vampires (and undead) are supposed to be immune to mental ability damage by default.

This is just a default though---if the sacred item ability specifically states that it damage undead charisma, then that takes precedence.

Undead immunities (special) take precedence over nonability immunities (general).

[Anthrowhale]

Undead immunities (special) take precedence over nonability immunities (general).

That's right, but it doesn't seem very relevant? Nothing in undead immunities appears to contradict nonability immunities.

[Tzardok]

That's right, but it doesn't seem very relevant? Nothing in undead immunities appears to contradict nonability immunities.

Didn't we just establish that undead aren't immune to attribute damage to mental attributes, while nonability immunities state that with no constitution you are immune to attribute damage in general?

[Anthrowhale]

Didn't we just establish that undead aren't immune to attribute damage to mental attributes, while nonability immunities state that with no constitution you are immune to attribute damage in general?

No? That seems like the question, right?

My understanding is:

Most general: Nonability[constitution] says 'no, the vampire's mental attributes cannot be damaged'.
More specific: Undead type says nothing contradictory to (1) so still 'no'.
Most specific: Sacred weapon says 'undead take Cha damage' so the answer changes to 'yes, the vampire takes cha damage from wielding a sacred weapon'.

I don't see how you can reach 'yes' at step 2?

[Tzardok]

No? That seems like the question, right?

My understanding is:

Most general: Nonability[constitution] says 'no, the vampire's mental attributes cannot be damaged'.
More specific: Undead type says nothing contradictory to (1) so still 'no'.
Most specific: Sacred weapon says 'undead take Cha damage' so the answer changes to 'yes, the vampire takes cha damage from wielding a sacred weapon'.

I don't see how you can reach 'yes' at step 2?

Read hamishspence's post directly above your first post in this thread and then come back. I'll wait.

[Anthrowhale]

Read hamishspence's post directly above your first post in this thread and then come back. I'll wait.
A convincing argument uses the rules and discusses how they are applied. I'm open to a convincing argument, but no amount of pointing to a post that I already responded to will work.

[hamishspence]

It's the way the Undead Type specifies immunity to physical ability damage, that implies lack of immunity to mental ability damage.

Compare to the Construct type - again, Constitution as a nonability, but there, immunity to all ability damage, is specified:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#constructType

Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain.

[Anthrowhale]

It's the way the Undead Type specifies immunity to physical ability damage, that implies lack of immunity to mental ability damage.
Hmm, so apparently the question is:

Does
...Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution)... mean 'subject to defaults for mental ability scores' or 'subject to damage to mental ability scores'?

The former seems more valid to me personally.

Checking extremes, I'm not aware of any examples of undead with a constitution score.

There are non-undead with no constitution score, but are there any non-undead with a constitution nonability that have a type which doesn't separately grant immunity to mental ability damage? (i.e. a nonability[constitution] but not an undead, construct, or deathless)?

[icefractal]

It doesn't make a lot of sense to explicitly specify something that's both unnecessary(because if the general immunities were not overwritten, then they would already include physical ability damage) and misleading.

While it's possible that they seriously screwed up and decided to specifically state half the immunities while not mentioning the other half, it's more likely that this indicates an exception.


Like if an entire block of a street has a sign saying:
"No parking on weekends."

And then one spot is specially marked and has a sign saying:
"No parking on Sunday."

That implies that you can park in that spot on Saturday.

[Anthrowhale]

Like if an entire block of a street has a sign saying:
"No parking on weekends."

And then one spot is specially marked and has a sign saying:
"No parking on Sunday."

That implies that you can park in that spot on Saturday.

The analogy here breaks on scoping. Parking signs have an implied scope of particular parking spots, so you have rule A for one parking spot and rule B for another without having to deal with overlapping scopes.

Here's a variant of the analogy which deals with scoping. Suppose there was a sign upon entering a city that 'Overnight streetside parking is not allowed within city limits.' Then suppose you find a street that says 'No parking on Saturdays'. You choose to park your car overnight on Sunday and get a ticket. You go to the judge, and argue 'No parking on Saturdays implies that parking on Sunday is allowed.' What does the judge say?

[Zanos]

RAW Anthrowhale is correct. Specifics vs. General is only applied if you have a rules contradiction, there's no contradiction if a creature is immune to something twice. The Undead type does not provide a vulnerability to mental ability damage that contradicts the rules for a constitution nonabliity, it provides an immunity to physical ability damage. Type rules are not a complete summation of a creatures nonability features either; the undead type entry does not fully replicate the other rules for a con nonability, so it needs to be referenced to understand all the rules that apply to such a creature.

RAI is pretty clear that undead are supposed to be vulnerable to mental ability damage.


Also I couldn't find a prestige class for an undead who hunts other undead. If anyone knows of anything like this (That's not 4e, or 5e) then I'd appreciate it if you could let me know.
Hunter of the Dead maybe? It's not great but it does get this feature, which is very useful since undead have a bad habit of not staying destroyed:
True Death (Su): Undead slain by a hunter of the dead of 5th level or higher, either by melee attacks or spells, can never rise again as undead. They are forever destroyed.

[icefractal]

Here's a variant of the analogy which deals with scoping. Suppose there was a sign upon entering a city that 'Overnight streetside parking is not allowed within city limits.' Then suppose you find a street that says 'No parking on Saturdays'. You choose to park your car overnight on Sunday and get a ticket. You go to the judge, and argue 'No parking on Saturdays implies that parking on Sunday is allowed.' What does the judge say?I'd say that type-based immunities are a different scope than non-ability based immunities, but admittedly, that's close.

Your altered metaphor is farther from the situation though. This isn't a case of two separate immunities that overlap in some situations, such as "Immune to ability damage" and "Immune to non-magical poison". "Immune to physical ability damage" is literally a subset of "Immune to ability damage." There is zero reason to list it separately if both apply.

So the correct version of your version of the metaphor would be if the street had a sign saying "No overnight parking Monday-Friday".

[Almus Rayne]

RAW Anthrowhale is correct. Specifics vs. General is only applied if you have a rules contradiction, there's no contradiction if a creature is immune to something twice. The Undead type does not provide a vulnerability to mental ability damage that contradicts the rules for a constitution nonabliity, it provides an immunity to physical ability damage. Type rules are not a complete summation of a creatures nonability features either; the undead type entry does not fully replicate the other rules for a con nonability, so it needs to be referenced to understand all the rules that apply to such a creature.

RAI is pretty clear that undead are supposed to be vulnerable to mental ability damage.


Hunter of the Dead maybe? It's not great but it does get this feature, which is very useful since undead have a bad habit of not staying destroyed:
True Death (Su): Undead slain by a hunter of the dead of 5th level or higher, either by melee attacks or spells, can never rise again as undead. They are forever destroyed.


First of all, thank you to everyone who responded to this. It was a great debate to read and you all made excellent points. But I'm taking this one was my final answer, that an undead using a sacred weapon WOULD receive the Cha dmg. Also yes Zanos, I noticed Hunter of the Dead too and I also figured that would probably be my best bet. But the requirements are a complication, I assume by design. I suppose I could hand wave the alignment requirement but this character is a rogue and now I just need to figure out "Turn Undead" from an undead.