# Mmmm...Libris Mortis.



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 9, 2004)

I picked this up today. Unfortunately, between Fable and Mortal Kombat Deception, I haven't been able to devote enough time to read much, but I did do a look through.

Pretty nice.  The "necrotic" family of spells is just nasty (and I mean that in the "ooh..icky" way).  Lots of new undead, variants for existing undead.

True Necromancer is not a core class, however, it is a 14 (or was it 13?) level PrC.  

Very very cool book so far.  Still not as cool as Draconomicon, but then, what is?


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 9, 2004)

Details! I must have ORCUS details!!! 

*pratices his summoning Demon Princes...*


----------



## jester47 (Oct 9, 2004)

ORCUS!  ORCUS!  ORCUS!

Hrmm... nothin'  

Always seems to work for Hastur...

A.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 9, 2004)

Agreed, I have been impressed with Libris Mortis, despite the silly name.  Lots of good fluff about undead, the condition of undeath, and their mental outlook, as well as how to run undead focused campaigns.  The spells look really nasty, and the PrCs, while not something I usually care much about, seem like interesting concepts.  There are also racial advancements ala Savage Species for several types of undead, and thoughts for using undead as PCs.  There are also some cool ideas for undead craving life force, and what happens to their psychological state when they are starved of it.

There is a section about deities of the undead in the book, and Orcus gets a one page writeup Nightfall, but I haven't seen much about Orcus in this book yet.  There is an interesting section on equipment and items geared towards undead, but by far the biggest part of the book is for new undead beasties.  Most of the new undead types seem pretty cool, and I could definitely see myself using in a darker sort of campaign (which is what I love to run).  The last part of the book presents half a dozen adventure locations with undead, the sort you can drop into an exisiting campaign (such as the House on the Hill, the Mortuary, and the Ghoul Colony).  Very cool stuff.  For me, this book is MUCH more useful than the Draconomicon since I tend to use undead about 100 times more often than dragons.  This book, Frostburn and MM III have really impressed me- WotC might be back on the path to some really good supplements again.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 9, 2004)

I love what I've read of the book so far (and there's definitely an undead high-level true necromancer in my players' future ).

But my favorite part of the book is the little sidebar in the introduction, where WotC gives a (very friendly and good-humored) "Get over it" to all the people complaining about the Latin.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 9, 2004)

This book is great... an Undead version of the Draconomicon.  Same format and style (physiology, psychology, analysis of abilities, new creatures, sample specific creature write-ups, lairs, etc).  I wonder what will be next in this series?

Orcus gets just 1 page (no picture of him, just his wand), but he is described as a "Death God", with quick details on his temples, domains, rites, quests, etc.  There are several other death gods similarly detailed, including Nerull the Reaper and Doresain, King of the Ghouls.  

The True Necromancer seems a bit too powerful IMHO.  They are similar to a Mystic Theurge, gaining effective caster levels in both Arcane and Divine spellcasting at the same time, except for a few levels where it's just 1 or the other.  In addition, they get fairly powerful class abilities at every level.  The entry requirements are not really any harder than Mystic Theurge, and True Necromancer goes for 14 levels instead of 10.  This means that you can go all the way to 20th level with it after entering the PrC at level 7.  Because of the few skipped double spellcasting advances, you'll be effectively a 15th lvl arcane/15th lvl divine caster at 20th level, the same as a Mystic Theurge, but you'll rebuke Undead as a 17th lvl cleric, have a bunch of class abilities (such as Create Undead (a 6th lvl spell) 2/day, Create Greater Undead (8th lvl spell) 2/day, Horrid Wilting (an 8th lvl spell) 1/day, Energy Drain (a 9th lvl spell) 1/day, Wail of the Banshee (a 9th lvl spell) 1/day, and Necromantic Prowess which increases your effective caster level by +4 for all Necromantic spells and abilities, including all of the free abilities listed above!  This is just too much, IMHO, and probably makes this the single most powerful PrC I've yet seen.  If you restrict it to NPCs, that's fine, but I think it's too much for a PC...


----------



## Olive (Oct 9, 2004)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> For me, this book is MUCH more useful than the Draconomicon since I tend to use undead about 100 times more often than dragons.




This is very true... slightly strange then that it's not the same size as the dragon book?



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But my favorite part of the book is the little sidebar in the introduction, where WotC gives a (very friendly and good-humored) "Get over it" to all the people complaining about the Latin.




Thank ghod.

Anyway, it was almost worth the cash for the Draconomicon purely for the random treasure tables at the ack of the book, which I use almost evey game.

Anything like that in this book?


----------



## Zamora (Oct 9, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Anyway, it was almost worth the cash for the Draconomicon purely for the random treasure tables at the ack of the book, which I use almost evey game.




Me too! I've used these loads. Haven't used the rest of the book much -- a couple of sample dragons was about it.

Cheers


Richard


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 9, 2004)

> The True Necromancer seems a bit too powerful IMHO.




I don't think so, really, for the same reasons the Mystic Theurge isn't really as unbalanced as it looks. You're trading power for variety. Sure, you can cast a lot more spells, from two different lists, but your spells will be weaker than other casters of equal level, and you'll never have the high-level ones. Any round you're healing, you're not throwing a _fireball_. Any round you're casting _shield_ on yourself, you're not casting _bless_ on the party.

It _sounds_, on paper, that having the spellcasting abilities of wiz15/clr15 makes you far more potent than a wiz20 or clr20. In practice, it just doesn't work that way.


----------



## Queen Petite (Oct 9, 2004)

> Details! I must have ORCUS details!!!





Thats easily the lamest name I've ever heard for a diety.

What's so special about that fellow?


----------



## Samurai (Oct 9, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't think so, really, for the same reasons the Mystic Theurge isn't really as unbalanced as it looks. You're trading power for variety. Sure, you can cast a lot more spells, from two different lists, but your spells will be weaker than other casters of equal level, and you'll never have the high-level ones. Any round you're healing, you're not throwing a _fireball_. Any round you're casting _shield_ on yourself, you're not casting _bless_ on the party.
> 
> It _sounds_, on paper, that having the spellcasting abilities of wiz15/clr15 makes you far more potent than a wiz20 or clr20. In practice, it just doesn't work that way.



I'll admit that, while powerful, the Mystic Theurge is not totally unbalanced.  However, what would you say about a Mystic Theurge with very powerful class abilities at every level in addition to the double caster progression?  The True Necromancer does get 8th and 9th level spells as class abilities, which he can cast for free 1-2 times per day each.  What other PrC gets class abilities as powerful as Wail of the Banshee (all in area save or die) and Horrid Wilting (19d6 damage to all in area at 20th lvl)? And the Necromantic Prowess ability means that by 20th level, he casts necro spells as a 19th level Arcane/Divine caster!  Unlike the Theurge, he also still advances in his Rebuke Undead power, and he acts as if he always has the Desecrate spell active.  In a single spellcaster, these powers may be balanced, but the tradition of double caster advancement (Mystic Theurge, Psychic Theurge, and Cerebromancer) has always had absolutely no class abilities at all... no bonus powers or feats of any kind, since the double caster progression is plenty.  Not only does the True Nec break that tradition, it does so in a big way...


----------



## Jolly Giant (Oct 9, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> This book is great... an Undead version of the Draconomicon.  Same format and style (physiology, psychology, analysis of abilities, new creatures, sample specific creature write-ups, lairs, etc).  I wonder what will be next in this series?




Aberrations, coming in january (or was it february?). If they can keep up the quality level of Draconomicon I hope there'll be a looong series of books like this!


----------



## Olive (Oct 9, 2004)

Queen Petite said:
			
		

> Thats easily the lamest name I've ever heard for a diety.
> 
> What's so special about that fellow?




It's ORCUS!!!

Demon Prince of the Undead etc. etc. I believe the name is the Roman version of Hades (As Jupiter is to Zeus).


----------



## Vecna (Oct 9, 2004)

Could you please give a list (with a brief description) of the various PrC?


----------



## cotton (Oct 9, 2004)

For those of you that have Libris Mortis already, where did you get it?  Amazon lists it as available 10/27...


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 9, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> It's ORCUS!!!
> 
> Demon Prince of the Undead etc. etc. I believe the name is the Roman version of Hades (As Jupiter is to Zeus).




I believe Queen Petite was joking.  The Roman version of Hades is Pluto, btw.  He may have an alternate name, I guess.


----------



## Vecna (Oct 9, 2004)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> I believe Queen Petite was joking.  The Roman version of Hades is Pluto, btw.  He may have an alternate name, I guess.




Yes, Pluto was called Orcus too:
http://www.dl.ket.org/latin1/mythology/1deities/gods/olympians/hades.htm


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 9, 2004)

Vecna said:
			
		

> Could you please give a list (with a brief description) of the various PrC?



Death's Chosen - an undead bodguard (3 levels)
Dirgesinger - a "lamentable" bard (5 levels)
Master of Radiance - what the Radiant Servant of Pelor should have been (5 levels)
Master of Shrouds - an undead summoner (10 levels)
Pale Master - needs no introduction (10 levels)
Sacred Purifier - a destroyer of the undead (5 levels)
True Necromancer - yeah (14 levels)
Undead Prestige Classes
Ephemeral Exemplar - paragons of incorporealness (3 levels)
Lurking Terror - a hunter undead (3 levels)
Master Vampire - controls more thralls (3 levels)
Tomb Warden - self-explanitory (3 levels)

Cool book.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Oct 9, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Dirgesinger - a "lamentable" bard (5 levels)




Maybe you can answer a question for me. 

In a fairly recent dragon - I _think _ it was 309, I wrote up an article containing three prestige classes for Bards, one of which was the Mourner. It was originally a 10 level class, but they kind of gutted it and took out the upper 5 levels of progression.

The Mourner had the ability to seal a dead body from the effects of necromantic magic permanently, and the ability to restore the undead to death with the power of their mournful dirge.

Is the Dirgesinger the same, only with a different name? Could you maybe list the class abilities and put a really short summary of the class' purpose?

Thanks;
Patrick Younts


----------



## Nebt Bhakau (Oct 9, 2004)

I'm also confused - where did you guys get your copy of Libris Mortis? I haven't seen it anywhere in stores, and it's listed as 'not released yet' on amazon.


----------



## Obfuscated (Oct 9, 2004)

*Where did I get my Libris Mortis Fix?*

I got my dose of undead goodness all thanks to my FLGS!  They usually have the newest releases right on schedule.

Amazon, on the other hand, doesn't get their WotC books until 1-2 weeks after the distributors have sent them to all the FLGS.


----------



## Zuoken (Oct 9, 2004)

Very interesting, it's very nice to know that WoTC has held the product to the same level of quality as the Draconomicon.

One question: How much focus is given to ghosts and other incorporeal undead in the book? I plan on them being a major evil force in my world and I did not like the benevolent outlook that Ghostwalk put most of them in.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 9, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> I'll admit that, while powerful, the Mystic Theurge is not totally unbalanced.  However, what would you say about a Mystic Theurge with very powerful class abilities at every level in addition to the double caster progression?  The True Necromancer does get 8th and 9th level spells as class abilities, which he can cast for free 1-2 times per day each.  What other PrC gets class abilities as powerful as Wail of the Banshee (all in area save or die) and Horrid Wilting (19d6 damage to all in area at 20th lvl)? And the Necromantic Prowess ability means that by 20th level, he casts necro spells as a 19th level Arcane/Divine caster!  Unlike the Theurge, he also still advances in his Rebuke Undead power, and he acts as if he always has the Desecrate spell active.  In a single spellcaster, these powers may be balanced, but the tradition of double caster advancement (Mystic Theurge, Psychic Theurge, and Cerebromancer) has always had absolutely no class abilities at all... no bonus powers or feats of any kind, since the double caster progression is plenty.  Not only does the True Nec break that tradition, it does so in a big way...




The necromancer gains one or two 8th and 9th level abilitiles, and they're fixed--he'll never be able to gain any others. And he'll never have 9th level spells, since a maxed-out TN is effectively a 15th-level caster in each class. That's less advancement than the MT, and therefore (IMO) justifies the extra abilities.

What you wind up with is a class that, when it comes to necromancy, is probably more powerful than a straight 20-level cleric or wizard (although even then, he's only 19 caster level), and when it comes to all other magics _but_ necromancy is _notably_ weaker. Sounds like exactly what a necromancer PrC should be, to me, and I don't find it unbalanced at all.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 9, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The necromancer gains one or two 8th and 9th level abilitiles, and they're fixed--he'll never be able to gain any others. And he'll never have 9th level spells, since a maxed-out TN is effectively a 15th-level caster in each class. That's less advancement than the MT, and therefore (IMO) justifies the extra abilities.
> 
> What you wind up with is a class that, when it comes to necromancy, is probably more powerful than a straight 20-level cleric or wizard (although even then, he's only 19 caster level), and when it comes to all other magics _but_ necromancy is _notably_ weaker. Sounds like exactly what a necromancer PrC should be, to me, and I don't find it unbalanced at all.



That is not less advancement than a Mystic Theurge... the MT is only a 10 level PrC.  MT can be entered at 7th level, same as TrNec, but it'll end at level 16.  Assuming he then takes 2 more levels each in Wizard and Cleric, that leaves him a 15/15 caster as well, but without any of the powerful abilities a TrNec gets.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 9, 2004)

Queen Petite said:
			
		

> Thats easily the lamest name I've ever heard for a diety.
> 
> What's so special about that fellow?



You joke I know...but when it comes to Undead Orcus is da'bomb. No doubt about it, I mean only HE would create skeletons you can't turn!  Black Skeletons of Rappan Athuk are STILL my favorite little things to toss out.

Anyway thanks to the fellows that have the book for the thing on Orcus. (Just a brief summary of the one page guys! Please!)

Also could I have a short one sentence summary and list of the monsters in this book.

List of spells perhaps? 

(Just curious Ari, you think about half this book would be good in a Hollowfaust game? Or is it more suited to Glivid Autel?)


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> That is not less advancement than a Mystic Theurge... the MT is only a 10 level PrC.  MT can be entered at 7th level, same as TrNec, but it'll end at level 16.  Assuming he then takes 2 more levels each in Wizard and Cleric, that leaves him a 15/15 caster as well, but without any of the powerful abilities a TrNec gets.




Yes, but the MT allows you to get 9th level spells, since you can take 4 levels of wizard or 4 levels of cleric after the progression ends, ending up as a 17/13 caster.  Getting 9th level spells at lvl 20 is just barely acceptable from a power standpoint, which is the factor that makes the MT fairly well-balanced (although underpowered at the mid-levels). If the True Necromancer hadn't given special powers to compensate for the 5-level (!) casting loss, it would have been completely unacceptable.


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 9, 2004)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> Maybe you can answer a question for me.
> 
> In a fairly recent dragon - I _think _ it was 309, I wrote up an article containing three prestige classes for Bards, one of which was the Mourner. It was originally a 10 level class, but they kind of gutted it and took out the upper 5 levels of progression.
> 
> ...



Quite the opposite, actually. The dirgesinger's 5th-level song allows them to animate an undead creature for the duration of their performance. They also get songs that allow them to weaken the attacks & damage capabilities of enemies, sap their Strength, and frighten them. Dirgesingers have no spellcasting ability, either, since their songs are more powerful than standard bardic music.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 9, 2004)

Wonder how they'd compare with say Mourner of Hollowfaust Pr-class from Hollowfaust...

Just thinking maybe I might use Dirgesinger as an alternative version of Mourner for Glivid Autel.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 9, 2004)

Zuoken said:
			
		

> One question: How much focus is given to ghosts and other incorporeal undead in the book? I plan on them being a major evil force in my world and I did not like the benevolent outlook that Ghostwalk put most of them in.




Quite a bit, actually.  There are loads of feats and stuff for incorporeals, like a feat that lets them pick stuff up (which is problematic...so, I have a Str of -, how can I pick anything up?), a weapon enhancement that allows you to sneak attack and crit incorporeal undead as well as being ghost touch, the aforementioned incorporeal class, etc.  It's not the primary focus, but incoporeality is very present.

Brad


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 9, 2004)

What are the requirements for True Necromancer?

I'm a 4th level wizard-necromancer in our Thursday night game and I'd like to steer my PC in that direction. Going to buy Libris Mortis when it's available on Amazon.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 9, 2004)

I just noticed something looking through Libris Mortis and MM III today.  The Unholy Toughness quality given to some undead in MM III (which basically gives exra hp to undead equal to their HD x Cha mod) doesn't appear in Libris Mortis.  Thats odd.  I really like the Unholy Toughness quality, and hoped it would be expanded on in Libris Mortis.  Oh well.


----------



## Gez (Oct 9, 2004)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> I believe Queen Petite was joking.  The Roman version of Hades is Pluto, btw.  He may have an alternate name, I guess.










Pluto is a Greek word. More precisely, it is Hades' nickname, "the Wealthy One", because his wealth (in souls) is constantly increasing.

Orcus is the latin name of Hades. He's more famous by his nickname of Father of (the City of) Dis, Dis Pater.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 9, 2004)

Any details on the new monsters and templates?

I'm wondering what the Atropal Scion is, I figure it's some kind of spawn of the Atropal from the Epic Level Handboook.  And what's with the Slaymate, Forshaken Shell, and Brain in a Jar?  Do they have reprints of the templates in Savage Species and Dragon Magazine, such a Wraith, Spectral, or Ghoul?

Are Forshaken Shells the Skinless of Ravenloft?  Desicators the Vacuous from the Planescape Monstrous Compendium III?  Are Necromentals a conversion of the Grave Elemental?  Are Visages the servants of Orcus/Teneborous as they were in Dead Gods?

And finally what is there for variant undead in the book?  Is it things like flaming skeletons, variant ghost abilities and other stuff?

Do they have a list of all undead creatures in other books, much like the Draconomicon had a list of all dragons in other books?


----------



## Samurai (Oct 9, 2004)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> What are the requirements for True Necromancer?
> 
> I'm a 4th level wizard-necromancer in our Thursday night game and I'd like to steer my PC in that direction. Going to buy Libris Mortis when it's available on Amazon.




Alignment:  Any non-good
Skills:  Knowledge (arcana) 8 ranks, Knowledge (Religion) 8 ranks
Feats:  Spell Focus: Necromancy
Spells:  Able to cast Summon Undead II as a Divine Spell, and Command Undead as an Arcane Spell  _Note:  Summon Undead II is a new 2nd lvl spell in Libris Mortis, Command Undead is a 2nd lvl spell in PHB)_ 
Special:  Able to rebuke undead
Special:   Access to the Death Domain

Altogether, these can be met after 6 levels, 3 as a Wizard/Sorcerer, 3 as a Cleric, if you planned on it from the start.  If not, it could take several additional levels, though that would mean missing out on the highest levels of TrNec, including some of their most potent special abilities.  

Since you already have more Wizard levels than you need, you'll now need to become a cleric with the Death Domain for 3 levels, and then enter TrNec at 8th lvl.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 9, 2004)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Any details on the new monsters and templates?
> 
> I'm wondering what the Atropal Scion is, I figure it's some kind of spawn of the Atropal from the Epic Level Handboook.  And what's with the Slaymate, Forshaken Shell, and Brain in a Jar?  Do they have reprints of the templates in Savage Species and Dragon Magazine, such a Wraith, Spectral, or Ghoul?
> 
> ...



Atropal Scions are undead aborted/stillborn godlings.  

There are Savage-Species-like levels for undead, though I haven't compared them to see if they are idetical to previous iterations.

Forsaken Shells are undead empty skins.

Desicators are the salt-encrusted undead remains of a water elemental... they try to leech water out of anything they encounter.

A Necromental is a template that can be placed over any Elemental creature, making it an undead version.  (There are also other examples of similar things, like the Desicater, which are more unique and interesting IMHO).

Visages were created by Orcus/Tenebrous.  He has since discarded most of them.

Lots of varient abilities, including flaming skeletons, fast Zombies, haunting ghosts, savage vampires, etc.  There are also several new templates, the coolest of which is Swarm-Shifter.  It allows a creature to change into a swarm... a vampire may become a swarm of rats or bats, a mummy may become a swarm of beetles or scorpions, etc.  11 sample "Swarm Forms" are given, and more could be created.  

There is a quick list of undead from MM, MM2, MM3, and FF.


----------



## Amy Kou'ai (Oct 9, 2004)

This is an extreme long shot, but I'm curious.  Anything in there about the deathless?


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 9, 2004)

Somehow I'm doubtful there's Deathless in this book. It seems most of the undead/unliving here are negative energy based.

They brought back Visages?! (I saw it just forgot about it's connection to Orcus...)

Anyway I'm sure Orcus will welcome them back...maybe.


----------



## Eluvan (Oct 10, 2004)

Hmmm, all these delicious looking books I keep hearing about. I may have to break my boycott on WotC expansion books (got sick of feeling screwed over a while back, I think it was the Complete Divine that pushed me over the edge) and look more closely at some of these. I do like my undead...


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

Amy Kou'ai said:
			
		

> This is an extreme long shot, but I'm curious.  Anything in there about the deathless?



I don't know what the Deathless are, off the top of my head, but I haven't seen any mention of them in LM.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai,

They are a kind of positive energy based undead/unliving that I guess can be closely equated to being "spirits" even though they have similiar undead traits. (Not healed by negative energy but positive energy works on them in terms of healing them.)

Both Book of Exalted Deeds and the Eberron CS talk about them.


----------



## Psion (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> The True Necromancer seems a bit too powerful IMHO.  They are similar to a Mystic Theurge, gaining effective caster levels in both Arcane and Divine spellcasting at the same time, except for a few levels where it's just 1 or the other.  In addition, they get fairly powerful class abilities at every level.  The entry requirements are not really any harder than Mystic Theurge, and True Necromancer goes for 14 levels instead of 10.  This means that you can go all the way to 20th level with it after entering the PrC at level 7.  Because of the few skipped double spellcasting advances, you'll be effectively a 15th lvl arcane/15th lvl divine caster at 20th level, the same as a Mystic Theurge, but you'll rebuke Undead as a 17th lvl cleric, have a bunch of class abilities (such as Create Undead (a 6th lvl spell) 2/day, Create Greater Undead (8th lvl spell) 2/day, Horrid Wilting (an 8th lvl spell) 1/day, Energy Drain (a 9th lvl spell) 1/day, Wail of the Banshee (a 9th lvl spell) 1/day, and Necromantic Prowess which increases your effective caster level by +4 for all Necromantic spells and abilities, including all of the free abilities listed above!  This is just too much, IMHO, and probably makes this the single most powerful PrC I've yet seen.  If you restrict it to NPCs, that's fine, but I think it's too much for a PC...




Sounds a bit like my Charnel Lord (see here with a bit of a spin towards the 14-level approach of the Lifeweaver in Green Ronin's Bow & Blade. I'd have to look and see hust how many levels they give up, but  it doesn't sound all that overpowered to me, based on the lifeweaver. I feel the Mystic Theurge gain a bit too much flexibility at high levels; I few less spellcasting levels in exchange for a few more fixed abilities sounds like just what the doctor ordered.


----------



## Psion (Oct 10, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Dirgesinger - a "lamentable" bard (5 levels)




Wonder what Hellhound thinks of that, given there is a class in LE1/compiled that is basically that concept...


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 10, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> I picked this up today. Unfortunately, between Fable and Mortal Kombat Deception, I haven't been able to devote enough time to read much, but I did do a look through.
> 
> Pretty nice.  The "necrotic" family of spells is just nasty (and I mean that in the "ooh..icky" way).  Lots of new undead, variants for existing undead.
> 
> ...



I've seen posts about people only buying WotC products, instead of D20, because they're better balanced, and well-tested, etc.  Why is it, then, that the True Necromancer (I think that's the one) gets +1 spellcaster level in both arcane *and* divine, like the Mystic Theurge....but *also* gets a bunch of special abilities?  Seems like the bar just got raised again....and this is supposed to balanced....?

Banshee


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I've seen posts about people only buying WotC products, instead of D20, because they're better balanced, and well-tested, etc.  Why is it, then, that the True Necromancer (I think that's the one) gets +1 spellcaster level in both arcane *and* divine, like the Mystic Theurge....but *also* gets a bunch of special abilities?  Seems like the bar just got raised again....and this is supposed to balanced....?
> 
> Banshee



We've been talking about the True Nec quite a bit in this thread already, and I for one agree they are too powerful... for a PC.  But as they must be non-good, they could make an exceptionally powerful villain....


----------



## Psion (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> We've been talking about the True Nec quite a bit in this thread already, and I for one agree they are too powerful... for a PC.  But as they must be non-good, they could make an exceptionally powerful villain....




I remember the early days of d20 when some third party publishers were putting out books with massively overpowered PrCs on the justification that they were intended as NPCs/sold their soul/whatever. That doesn't wash then and it doesn't wash now, IMO.

_If_ it is overpowered, that is.


----------



## Vecna (Oct 10, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I've seen posts about people only buying WotC products, instead of D20, because they're better balanced, and well-tested, etc.  Why is it, then, that the True Necromancer (I think that's the one) gets +1 spellcaster level in both arcane *and* divine, like the Mystic Theurge....but *also* gets a bunch of special abilities?  Seems like the bar just got raised again....and this is supposed to balanced....?
> 
> Banshee




Well, when Mystic Theurge appeared a lot of people complained about it.
Now the commpon opinion is that MT is quite balanced.
True Necromancer (what I've read here about it actually) doesn't get dual spellcasting progression every level.
So why don't you wait a bit and see if it's a balanced PrC?

If, for example, one of TN abilities is Horrid Wilting as (sp) ability once per day, I don't think it's something unbalanced. I'd call it "useless" from a min/max point of view.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Sounds a bit like my Charnel Lord (see here with a bit of a spin towards the 14-level approach of the Lifeweaver in Green Ronin's Bow & Blade. I'd have to look and see hust how many levels they give up, but  it doesn't sound all that overpowered to me, based on the lifeweaver. I feel the Mystic Theurge gain a bit too much flexibility at high levels; I few less spellcasting levels in exchange for a few more fixed abilities sounds like just what the doctor ordered.



They don't really give up any caster levels compared to a Mystic Theurge.  At 20th level, a Mystic Theurge will have a grand total of 30 caster levels (maybe 15/15, maybe 17/13, but 30 total).  They will have very few class abilities, only what they picked up as a lvl 3 Cleric or Wizard.

A TrNec will also have 30 total caster levels, but it will have to be 15/15, no other combo.  They will have numerous class abilities, including *56 spell levels* worth of free spells, rebuke undead as a 17th lvl caster (instead of 3rd-7th for a Theurge, depending upon his class split), a +4 caster level  on all necromantic spells and abilities (including all of the 56 free spell levels worth), and so on.  There is really no trade off in caster levels for special abilities by 20th level.


----------



## PeterDonis (Oct 10, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But my favorite part of the book is the little sidebar in the introduction, where WotC gives a (very friendly and good-humored) "Get over it" to all the people complaining about the Latin.




Just out of curiosity, do they explain that it isn't even correct Latin? I haven't seen the book yet.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

Vecna said:
			
		

> Well, when Mystic Theurge appeared a lot of people complained about it.
> Now the commpon opinion is that MT is quite balanced.
> True Necromancer (what I've read here about it actually) doesn't get dual spellcasting progression every level.
> So why don't you wait a bit and see if it's a balanced PrC?
> ...



The difference is a Theurge only goes for 10 levels.  That means that by 20th level, the character has only 10 double-caster progressions, and 10 singlecaster progressions.

A True Nec works out exactly the same because it's a 14 level PrC... 10 single caster progressions and 10 double caster progressions, plus powerful class abilities at every level.

If Mystic Theurge continued for 14 levels, you'd have a point... then, at 20th level, the Theurge would be a 17/17 caster, while the True Nec only a 15/15 caster.  Do you allow characters to keep advancing past 10th level as a Theurge as a house rule?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 10, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I've seen posts about people only buying WotC products, instead of D20, because they're better balanced, and well-tested, etc.  Why is it, then, that the True Necromancer (I think that's the one) gets +1 spellcaster level in both arcane *and* divine, like the Mystic Theurge....but *also* gets a bunch of special abilities?  Seems like the bar just got raised again....and this is supposed to balanced....?
> 
> Banshee




See comments above. The True Necromancer is _flexible_, but not _powerful_ (except where it comes to actual necromancy).

As I said before, it's the Mystic Theurge all over again. People see the numbers and assume "Look at all those spells they can cast! They're overpowered!" But people don't think about the fact that they're _massively_ weaker than single class casters--at 20th level, their _five levels_ behind in spell power and in number of spells in any specific class. They still only have the hit points, saves, and BAB of a single individual.

Look at a 20th-level TN vs. a 20th-level wizard. The TN  can also cast cleric spells, and that's potent. He can rebuke undead. He's got a few spell-like abilities.

The wizard has more spells of each level. The wizard's spells are more powerful (longer duration, more damage, etc.), except for necromantic spells. The wizard has an additional bonus feat. The wizard has 9th-level spells; the TN does not.

Compared to a 20th-level cleric. The cleric has 9th-level spells, the TN does not. The cleric's got a better attack bonus. The cleric's got better hit points. The cleric's spells are more powerful, as above.

The TN has two essential spellcasting stats. Assuming the TN was created with the same rolling or point buy system as the straight wizard or straight cleric, he's not likely to have as many bonus spells or as high a save DC against most of his spells, because he's dividing his bonus attribute points and enhancement items between two stats.

Most important, remember that the TN can still only cast one spell per round. It's the same reason Gestalt characters (from Unearthed Arcana) are only an EL of a few levels higher than a standard character of their level. Basically, the TN has more options of what he can do in a given round, but in any given round, he's going to be less mechanicaly effective than a straight caster.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> The difference is a Theurge only goes for 10 levels.  That means that by 20th level, the character has only 10 double-caster progressions, and 10 singlecaster progressions.
> 
> A True Nec works out exactly the same because it's a 14 level PrC... 10 single caster progressions and 10 double caster progressions, plus powerful class abilities at every level.
> 
> If Mystic Theurge continued for 14 levels, you'd have a point... then, at 20th level, the Theurge would be a 17/17 caster, while the True Nec only a 15/15 caster.  Do you allow characters to keep advancing past 10th level as a Theurge as a house rule?




I'd have to see the class, but if the TN can't go past 15/15 split, and only gets a few 9th level spell-like abilities at high levels, then it doesn't sound overpowered at all. Using cumulative spell levels is not a good way to assess power, because it doesn't take account of time. If both a 9th level and fifth level spell cast in a standard action, the 9 spell levels are worth more than the 10 spell levels from two 5th levels because it only took one round to cast the former as oppossed to two. And given the short front loaded nature of most 3.x combats, you might very well not get to cast that second fifth level in any case.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

A 20th level Wizard has a total of 180 spell levels worth of spells, not counting bonus spells for ability scores.  That includes 4 8th lvl and 4 9th lvl.

A 20th lvl Mystic Theurge with a 15/15 split has 242 spell levels including 3 8th lvl and no 9th lvl spells.  A 17/13 split favoring Wizard gets him 235 total spell levels, but that includes 2 8th lvl spells and 1 9th lv.

A 20th lvl TrNec has 300 spell levels worth of spells (including 6 8th lvl spells and 2 9th lvl, more than double what a Mystic Theurge gets...) when you count his free spells per day, plus much better turning, +4 caster lvl with Necro spells, etc.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> A 20th level Wizard has a total of 180 spell levels worth of spells, not counting bonus spells for ability scores.  That includes 4 8th lvl and 4 9th lvl.
> 
> A 20th lvl Mystic Theurge with a 15/15 split has 242 spell levels including 3 8th lvl and no 9th lvl spells.  A 17/13 split favoring Wizard gets him 235 total spell levels, but that includes 2 8th lvl spells and 1 9th lv.
> 
> A 20th lvl TrNec has 300 spell levels worth of spells (including 2 9th lvl and 6 8th lvl spells) when you count his free spells per day, plus much better turning, +4 caster lvl with Necro spells, etc.




But total levels-worth of spells is _not_ a good determination of power, certainly not when viewed in a vaccuum. It doesn't take into account the fact that those spells are weaker, that they're lower level, and that having more spells per day is only an issue if/when the single-class casters run out. (And even then, the TN will likely have blown through most of his more effective spells by the time that happens.)


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But total levels-worth of spells is _not_ a good determination of power, certainly not when viewed in a vaccuum. It doesn't take into account the fact that those spells are weaker, that they're lower level, and that having more spells per day is only an issue if/when the single-class casters run out. (And even then, the TN will likely have blown through most of his more effective spells by the time that happens.)



That's why I included the number of "high level" (8th and 9th lvl spells) per day as well... 4/4 for a vanilla Wizard, either 3/0 or 2/1 for a Theurge, and 6/2 for a TrNec.  And for Necromantic spells, the TrNec's caster level nearly matches that of a vanilla caster, 19 vs 20.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 10, 2004)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I'm wondering what the Atropal Scion is, I figure it's some kind of spawn of the Atropal from the Epic Level Handboook.




You would be correct; yes, it's a leftover from a dead, er, destroyed Atropal.  It's quite cool, being an Atropal cut down to size so a non-epic party won't get ripped into pieces automatically.

Amusing tidbits for those who've gone through or read Return to the Tomb of Horrors are the Bleakborn (aka "Moilian Zombie") and the Dream Vestige (aka "The Vestige").  There are one or two quotes from the Bleak Academy, but that's not described in the list of sample locations.

Brad


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> A 20th level Wizard has a total of 180 spell levels worth of spells, not counting bonus spells for ability scores.  That includes 4 8th lvl and 4 9th lvl.
> 
> A 20th lvl Mystic Theurge with a 15/15 split has 242 spell levels including 3 8th lvl and no 9th lvl spells.  A 17/13 split favoring Wizard gets him 235 total spell levels, but that includes 2 8th lvl spells and 1 9th lv.
> 
> A 20th lvl TrNec has 300 spell levels worth of spells (including 6 8th lvl spells and 2 9th lvl, more than double what a Mystic Theurge gets...) when you count his free spells per day, plus much better turning, +4 caster lvl with Necro spells, etc.




But again, numbers don't tell the whole story. As I keep saying, every one of those spells is weaker (except the necromantic ones). He's got fewer of any given higher level spells from each category. His save DCs are likely weaker.

And at this point, we're talking in circles, so why don't we agree that we've got different view of the class until/unless people start showing up with actual numerical _and playtested_ evidence, and let these other poor folks get back to discussing the book?


----------



## Psion (Oct 10, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But total levels-worth of spells is _not_ a good determination of power, certainly not when viewed in a vaccuum. It doesn't take into account the fact that those spells are weaker,




 

It doesn't? You add up the spell levels. They are already weighted. You could make the argument that the weighting isn't proportional, but you can't say that by counting the levels you aren't counting the levels...



> that they're lower level, and that having more spells per day is only an issue if/when the single-class casters run out. (And even then, the TN will likely have blown through most of his more effective spells by the time that happens.)




That depends highly on campaign style. It's not just about running out of slots/endurance. It's about always having the right tool for the job. A MT is the ultimate Swiss army knife. If you only ever face you players with one sort of challenge, then it's not a big advantage. Otherwise, it's a pretty big advantage.

For my gaming style, I find the breadth that the MT gets at high level to be pretty telling, but the idea of exchanging a few anvancement level for a few more specialized powers is just what the doctor ordered -- as is the case in Green Ronin's lifeweaver and my Charnel Lord.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> There are several other death gods similarly detailed, including Nerull the Reaper and *Doresain, King of the Ghouls*.




This name I'm having a vague memory of. Isn't this the main bad guy at the end of the old Dungeon magazine adventure "_Kingdom of Ghouls_", by Wolfgang Baur? Oh wait, lemme look, I have the issue of Dungeon nearby.

It *IS!* Very cool!

Anyone able to give some details on Doresain? Does he still have a tenuous link to Nerull, the _Orb of Shadows_, and the Negative Material Plane?

Anything about the kingdom of ghouls he established, the White Kingdom, being a competative power to Erelhei-Cinlu, the Vault of the Drow?


Very interesting, I'll get Libris Mortis JUST FOR DORESAIN!

Kingdom of Ghouls remains my top Dungeon adventure.


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 10, 2004)

> It doesn't? You add up the spell levels. They are already weighted. You could make the argument that the weighting isn't proportional, but you can't say that by counting the levels you aren't counting the levels...




Sure I can. A _cone of cold_ cast by a 15th-level Mystic Theurge or True Necromancer is weaker than a _cone of cold_ cast by a straight wizard of the same level, because the MT/TN's _caster level for wizard spells_ is lower. That has no bearing whatsoever on total number of spell levels, and isn't measured by any such rubric.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the TN/MT are appropriate for all styles of play. As you and I have discussed before (in reference to psion vs. sorcerer, I believe), play style has a _major_ impact on whether something is balanced. When you get right down to it, every one of these "balance" discussions is a moot point, unless you're working from a common campaign, or something is _so_ blatantly out of whack (like the Radiant Servant of Pelor) that it just leaps off the page.

Balance, frankly, is a common myth that we all (or most of us, anyway) agree to subscribe to. My belief is that, _in most campaigns_, the MT and TN are both balanced, because my experience shows that trading the upper level of your potential power for a greater variety of lower-level stuff is a fair trade (within reason). But that's obviously based on my experience of campaigns. Yours (also obviously) differs.

As far as the "Swiss army knife" aspect, you're right--but again, that brings us back to versatility vs. power. Frankly, the bard is one of the single-most versatile core classes, and is in fact touted as a good fifth party member because he can take on the rolls of any of the main four, but not as well. But I've never heard anyone complain the bard is unbalanced, unless they were complaining it's too _weak_. It's the same thing here. Sometimes the party wants power. Sometimes they want variety. Sometimes one wins out, sometimes the other. I don't think being the Swiss army knife is an inherently unbalancing advantage, when balanced with loss of power. Sure, they can deal with more types of situations, but they won't deal with any _given_ situation _as effectively_.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 10, 2004)

Dum-de-dal...ORCUS!

Must have more stuff from Liber Mortis that involves Orcus!!!


----------



## Gez (Oct 10, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the TMNT are appropriate for all styles of play.




Indeed! They have nothing to do in a self-respecting D&D campaign!


----------



## Greybar (Oct 10, 2004)

However, the Adolescent Radioactive Black Belt Hamsters are practically a staple...


----------



## ruemere (Oct 10, 2004)

Ari,
I'm impressed. And if you remember certain little thread at SSS fora on certain prestige class, you'll know why.


			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Sure I can. A _cone of cold_ cast by a 15th-level Mystic Theurge or True Necromancer is weaker than a _cone of cold_ cast by a straight wizard of the same level, because the MT/TN's _caster level for wizard spells_ is lower.
> [...]



Exactly. In any given situation, MT and TN are going to perform admirably, yet worse than any specialized core class. They are also going to get a worse ability array (does anyone wonder anymore why point-buy may improve game balance?) and, at lower levels, they are unlikely to wield spells which turn the tide of a conflict (Dimension Door, Ice Storm, Neutralize Poison, Raise Dead and a few other 4-6 level spells), whereas a typical wizard or cleric will cast them with gusto.

Oh, and don't forget Miracle, Wish and Limited Wish. Can't they mimick certain spells when cast?

With regard to MT - TN comparison, TN seems to come as a winner, however... it's been quite a time since MT was released. TN could be viewed as souped up MT variation, a result of playtesting. And much more restricted... correct me with I'm wrong, but it's much more difficult to get a death god to sponsor your divine abilities than <insert suitable deity of player preference> for MT.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Klaus (Oct 10, 2004)

Could anyone post the size of the new creatures in Libris Mortis?


----------



## ecliptic (Oct 10, 2004)

What I don't get is why people don't argue this disadvantage of the MT and TN. If your character has taken either, that obviously means your DM allows PrCs. So by taking them that means you can't really take anyother PrC, which most allow +1 caster level.

You could argue that any Wizard or Cleric with a PrC is at an advantage with one that is not. Matter of fact I think MT is a bit weak when comparing it in such a way.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 10, 2004)

For those interested in getting a good idea of what's in the book, I've posted a review at my site.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 10, 2004)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Amusing tidbits for those who've gone through or read Return to the Tomb of Horrors are the Bleakborn (aka "Moilian Zombie") and the Dream Vestige (aka "The Vestige").  There are one or two quotes from the Bleak Academy, but that's not described in the list of sample locations.
> 
> Brad




_Of course_ this comes out a few months after I run RttToH for my regular high-level group!


----------



## buzz (Oct 10, 2004)

PeterDonis said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, do they explain that it isn't even correct Latin? I haven't seen the book yet.



According to the promo material at WotC's site, the actual "translation" of the title is "From the Books of the Dead". Considering the title is supposedly "mangled celestial", the plural dative of "Libris Mortis" works okay, as I understand it.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 10, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> It doesn't? You add up the spell levels. They are already weighted. You could make the argument that the weighting isn't proportional, but you can't say that by counting the levels you aren't counting the levels...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Read my above post. They are NOT weighted for time neccessary to cast. It should be obvious why that makes a big difference.

Edit: This is important, because the number of actions, like AC, does not scale positivily as one progresses in level. In fact, combats tend to become shorter in terms of rounds spent. You could shoot out a few more spells with Quicken Spell, but then you would be extending those high level spell slots that the MT and TN don't have or else throwing completly garbage spells and making yourself completly useless. This means higher level spells are more important than simply comparing there spell levels would seem to indicate.

This debate has been had way too many times before, and while i'm willing to concede some degree of variability in how powerful any given class is in any given campaign, the standard four encounters of equal encounter level, the MT (and possibly the TN) will not come out looking at all exceptional.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 10, 2004)

ecliptic said:
			
		

> What I don't get is why people don't argue this disadvantage of the MT and TN. If your character has taken either, that obviously means your DM allows PrCs. So by taking them that means you can't really take anyother PrC, which most allow +1 caster level.
> 
> You could argue that any Wizard or Cleric with a PrC is at an advantage with one that is not. Matter of fact I think MT is a bit weak when comparing it in such a way.




It's also weak compared to a simple straight core class, or so the smarter arguments would indicate.


----------



## Psion (Oct 10, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Sure I can. A _cone of cold_ cast by a 15th-level Mystic Theurge or True Necromancer is weaker than a _cone of cold_ cast by a straight wizard of the same level, because the MT/TN's _caster level for wizard spells_ is lower.




This is true, but I thought you were saying the _spell level_ wasn't being taken into account.

sigh



> Balance, frankly, is a common myth that we all (or most of us, anyway) agree to subscribe to. My belief is that, _in most campaigns_, the MT and TN are both balanced




That's pretty hard to back up without some survey on what "most campaigns" are like. But I beleive the flexibility afforded in having so many different spells is significant in a wide variety of campaigns. But when it comes down to it, all we can ultimately say a given class is balanced for is our own games.



> As far as the "Swiss army knife" aspect, you're right--but again, that brings us back to versatility vs. power. Frankly, the bard is one of the single-most versatile core classes, and is in fact touted as a good fifth party member because he can take on the rolls of any of the main four, but not as well.




I beleive the bard's versatility is not so great as you think. He can fight decently, but his magic is fairly narrow in scope.


----------



## Psion (Oct 10, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Read my above post. They are NOT weighted for time neccessary to cast.




Which is all well and good, but really does not bear on what I was actually saying. To wit, I am not saying the sheer weight of the number of spells the MT can cast in a day is the telling factor in the power of the MT -- which your argument bears on. My contention is that having the right tool to deal with any given job is where the big advantage of the MT lies, and the fact that you won't be using all your spells every day has little impact on that.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 10, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Which is all well and good, but really does not bear on what I was actually saying. To wit, I am not saying the sheer weight of the number of spells the MT can cast in a day is the telling factor in the power of the MT -- which your argument bears on. My contention is that having the right tool to deal with any given job is where the big advantage of the MT lies, and the fact that you won't be using all your spells every day has little impact on that.




I would have to know what you mean by versatility. If you are referring to combat contingencies and traps and the like, i.e. those encounters that do not impose an arbitrary amount of damage or dish out an arbitrary amount of xp, then I would say that there is very little difference in that type of utility between a single and prc multiclass. Because even the former has a huge excess of low level spell slots, and the low levels is where that type of utility tends to be found.

If you are referring to story reward type stuff, then it is possible for a dm to skew heavily in favor of the MT. But that is a passive benefit. 

But atleast you are not talking about straight combat balance. I knew those fears were overblown the first time the MT preview was posted and the knee jerking began...ah memories.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 10, 2004)

Someone in my group got this book yesterday. At first glance through I wasn't that impressed.

I guess it's just my own personal opinion, but I'm tired of the endless repetition of more PRCs, Feats, and Spells...  They're usefull, but I wish they'd come out with books that detail something OTHER then that. Like new optional rules and such.

But that's just me.

Another member of our group when glancing through the book noticed there was a power that allowed bardic music to effect undead, and then immediatly said, "Haha cool.. like Thriller..."

Now that, is a power worth having!


----------



## HellHound (Oct 10, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> _re: Dirgesinger_ Wonder what Hellhound thinks of that, given there is a class in LE1/compiled that is basically that concept...




Just because I was the first out of the block with that one. 

It is such an obvious concept, that I'm surprised there are so few of these prestige classes floating around, honestly.

And look out, mine gets a re-write soon as we bring them all to 3.5


----------



## seankreynolds (Oct 10, 2004)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Quite a bit, actually.  There are loads of feats and stuff for incorporeals, like a feat that lets them pick stuff up (which is problematic...so, I have a Str of -, how can I pick anything up?), *a weapon enhancement that allows you to sneak attack and crit incorporeal undead* as well as being ghost touch, the aforementioned incorporeal class, etc.  It's not the primary focus, but incoporeality is very present.




I'm hoping they errata the boldfaced part, as it makes no sense (are you creating vital organs in the incorporeal creature so you can crit it? if so, can your buddies sneak attack and crit the undead, too? or are they only there the instant you make your attack? if so, can your buddies ready an action to attack those organs when you create them?). This is one of the problem things in the book that I caught and they were trying to fix it in typesetting, and whatever they couldn't fix was going to be erratad.


----------



## Sketchpad (Oct 10, 2004)

I got my copy of the LM on Friday and spent most of my free time this weekend reading it   Personally, I love the book ... the new creatures are a good addition and with the monster classes, new feats, spells and Prestige Classes, there are many new options for players and NPCs alike.  The gem that I found in the book are the options for traditional undead in the back of the book.  You want faster zombies (like those in the new Dawn of the Dead or 28 Days Later)?  There are options for them in the bcak of the book, as well as a horde of creatures statted out with both the skeleton and zombie template ... good stuff!  My only problem with the book was the size ... I'd say it falls in around half the size of the Draconomicon, which is too bad ... I would've liked to see some additional information on the actual Libris Mortis (as discussed in the very beginning of the book), as well as some new races perhaps?  There could easily be more info in the book IMHO, but what's there is well worth the read


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 10, 2004)

Just curious then Shawn, are you gonna review Liber Mortis then?

*thinks maybe the only way he'll get more Orcus info is getting it himself. *

Anyway...


----------



## Scribble (Oct 10, 2004)

> You want faster zombies (like those in the new Dawn of the Dead or 28 Days Later)? There are options for them in the bcak of the book, as well as a horde of creatures statted out with both the skeleton and zombie template ...




What if I want the ones from Shawn of The Dead?


----------



## teitan (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> Alignment:  Any non-good
> Skills:  Knowledge (arcana) 8 ranks, Knowledge (Religion) 8 ranks
> Feats:  Spell Focus: Necromancy
> Spells:  Able to cast Summon Undead II as a Divine Spell, and Command Undead as an Arcane Spell  _Note:  Summon Undead II is a new 2nd lvl spell in Libris Mortis, Command Undead is a 2nd lvl spell in PHB)_
> ...




This would be very difficult to accomplish in my games as I control spell access outside the PHB which in my campaign balances it even more. Looks like a good Prestige Class....

Jason


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 10, 2004)

Greybar said:
			
		

> However, the Adolescent Radioactive Black Belt Hamsters are practically a staple...




You're the other one! The ARBH, a spoof of a parody. My favorite was Clint. In d20 terms, a Gunmage12. (OGL Steampunk, Mongoose).


----------



## jester47 (Oct 10, 2004)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> I'm hoping they errata the boldfaced part, as it makes no sense (are you creating vital organs in the incorporeal creature so you can crit it? if so, can your buddies sneak attack and crit the undead, too? or are they only there the instant you make your attack? if so, can your buddies ready an action to attack those organs when you create them?). This is one of the problem things in the book that I caught and they were trying to fix it in typesetting, and whatever they couldn't fix was going to be erratad.




Sean, 

That seems to be a fairly limited view of the ability and dare I say the mechanics?  Its a weapon type.  Its magical property of a single weapon that does more damage to incorporeal undead if you 1) roll well and get a crit threat 2) *Sneak up on* an incorporeal undead and hit it if you have a level of Rogue.  So as balnace goes, it does not seem that bad.

So mechanicly it works sort of like a burst weapon property.  Icy burst only does more damage when you crit.  This weapon only does more damage when you crit or pull off a sneak attack.  This property is sort of like a positive energy burst weapon that favors rogue/assassin sneak attack ability.  

I interpret the "critical" on this as if it touches the area occupied by an incorporeal undead too much, it takes a lot of positive energy damage.  A sneak attack would be where the rogue sneaks up on it and just puts the sword in its space for a longer time than it would be there if you "chopped it in half."  Thus more damage. 

The sneak attack and the critical maechanic just seem to be there out of convenience rather than creating a new mechanic for the weapon.  Its a special case.  Its a better than ghost touch weapon, and that pretty much is that it allows more damage on what would normally be a critical hit or a successful sneak attack. 

However while not conceptually bad, I think the language of the rule could be written better.  Instead of "...can deliver sneak attacks or critical hits..." a better way to say it would be "...allows the extra damage from attacks that would normally be criticals or successful sneak attacks."  

Using this interpretation and this language, you don't have your internal organ problem. 

Aaron.


----------



## jester47 (Oct 10, 2004)

The max wizard casting level for the TN is 17th level.  The max cleric level for a TN is 17.  However to even get the class you have to start at minimum with a 10th level character.  Wiz5/Clr5.  So at 20th character level you have 10 level in TN.  So that means you cast as a Wiz13/Clr13.  Whereas your buddy the Wiz20 gets to cast as a Wiz20.  Granted you have a lot more access to some really cool FYU spells, but at character level 20 you are not getting anything more than a 7th level spell.  But you can cast more spells in a day, but it takes you longer to prepare them all.  You get to wear armor.  But wearing it disrupts your wizard castings.  Plus, chances are you are probably fairly specialised.  

Aaron.


----------



## Swack-Iron (Oct 10, 2004)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> I'm hoping they errata the boldfaced part, as it makes no sense (are you creating vital organs in the incorporeal creature so you can crit it? if so, can your buddies sneak attack and crit the undead, too? or are they only there the instant you make your attack? if so, can your buddies ready an action to attack those organs when you create them?). This is one of the problem things in the book that I caught and they were trying to fix it in typesetting, and whatever they couldn't fix was going to be erratad.




To me, this feels like a "let's give something to rogues for undead fights" mechanic, which the game was sorely lacking. Ever played a rogue in an undead-heavy campaign? Although useful for getting the party into the vampire lord's lair, completely useless in a fight. And, of course, anyone with these weapon properties is giving up some other useful weapon properties -- it's only useful against undead, after all.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 10, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> The max wizard casting level for the TN is 17th level.  The max cleric level for a TN is 17.  However to even get the class you have to start at minimum with a 10th level character.  Wiz5/Clr5.  So at 20th character level you have 10 level in TN.  So that means you cast as a Wiz13/Clr13.  Whereas your buddy the Wiz20 gets to cast as a Wiz20.  Granted you have a lot more access to some really cool FYU spells, but at character level 20 you are not getting anything more than a 7th level spell.  But you can cast more spells in a day, but it takes you longer to prepare them all.  You get to wear armor.  But wearing it disrupts your wizard castings.  Plus, chances are you are probably fairly specialised.
> 
> Aaron.




You sure you didn't mean Mythis Theurge, rather than True Necromancer? Because those numbers aren't right for the TN. You have to be 3/3 to pick up TN, and it advances a full 14 classes, but there are a few levels where you only pick up Arcane _or_ Divine advancement, not both. The caster level for a 20th-level TN, assuming he was 3/3 when he started and took all 14 levels of the PrC, is 15/15.

None of which invalidates your basic point, though. 

EDIT TO ADD: Wait a minute. You're right. I was only looking at the casting requirements, not the skill requirements.

I think those skill requirements are a mistake, though. Otherwise, why have 14 levels of the class, when you can only get 10?  :\ 

Sigh...

EDIT AGAIN TO ADD: The sample True Necromancer is a cleric 3/wizard 3/TN5. Those skill requirements are definitely in error. I'm guessing they should both require 6 ranks, rather than 8.


----------



## Dalamar (Oct 10, 2004)

> I think those skill requirements are a mistake, though. Otherwise, why have 14 levels of the class, when you can only get 10?



Why? You don't have to be a 5th level wizard to have 8 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) or a 5th level cleric to have 8 ranks in Knowledge (Religion). You just need to be a 5th level character, which means that if you get your last wizard level at character level 5 (or have the Knowledge domain for your cleric levels), you don't even have to pay for the skills as cross-class


----------



## shady (Oct 10, 2004)

Vecna said:
			
		

> Yes, Pluto was called Orcus too:
> http://www.dl.ket.org/latin1/mythology/1deities/gods/olympians/hades.htm



 Pluto was actually another Greek name for Hades (or Aides), it derives from the word for "rich" (which you can see in words like "plutocracy" - government by the rich) hence the Roman name "Dis" (rich) or "Dispater" (father of wealth). The "giver of wealth" was another aspect of Hades, through his connection with Persephone and Ceres/Demeter. Both the Romans and the Greeks used Pluto as a name.

 The Romans also used Tartarus and Orcus. It seems likely that Orcus was either an Etruscan or Gaulish god of the dead. The Orcus aspect was the "angel of death" and as such is similar to Thanatos, who was the Greek embodiment of death (Terry Pratchett style) rather than king of the dead.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 10, 2004)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> Why? You don't have to be a 5th level wizard to have 8 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) or a 5th level cleric to have 8 ranks in Knowledge (Religion). You just need to be a 5th level character, which means that if you get your last wizard level at character level 5 (or have the Knowledge domain for your cleric levels), you don't even have to pay for the skills as cross-class




*blink*

You're right. I'm an idiot.

That's what I get for arguing rules--not just here, but in several other conversations as well--for three days straight. My mind turns to oatmeal.

But actually (just to prove I haven't lost _all_ my rules acumen ), it doesn't matter what order you take the classes in, since cleric and wizard both have Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (religion) as class skills.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 10, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> So mechanicly it works sort of like a burst weapon property. Icy burst only does more damage when you crit. This weapon only does more damage when you crit or pull off a sneak attack. This property is sort of like a positive energy burst weapon that favors rogue/assassin sneak attack ability.



Then make it a "positive burst" weapon.  Sneak attack has been defined as the ability to hit important/sensitive bits with some accuracy.  To turn it into nothing but a "bonus damage" mechanic robs it of its flavor.

I don't have the book, yet, so there may be something I'm missing.  From what I am seeing, though, I've got to agree with Sean.  Unless the weapon is somehow revealing vital spots or adding them where they didn't previously exist, sneak attack cannot be used.

Overall, though, I'm psyched for this book.  Undead play a pretty major role in my game.  This book will probably be of more use to me than any other in the series.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Sure I can. A _cone of cold_ cast by a 15th-level Mystic Theurge or True Necromancer is weaker than a _cone of cold_ cast by a straight wizard of the same level, because the MT/TN's _caster level for wizard spells_ is lower. That has no bearing whatsoever on total number of spell levels, and isn't measured by any such rubric.



Just wanted to correct you on 1 thing... a Cone of Cold cast by a 15th or 20th level caster is exactly identical.  The range is a set 60' cone and doesn't increase with level.  Damage is 1d6 per level, but to a max of 15d6.  Saves are not affected by caster level.  So they will be exactly the same, as will Fireballs (max 10d6), Lightning Bolts (max 10d6), Magic Missile (max 5 missiles at 9th lvl), and other attack spells of 5th lvl and below.  Even Freezing Sphere, a 6th level spell, is limited to 15 dice, though Chain Lightning, another 6th lvl spell, is limited to 20th lvl.

So only a small handful of attack spells will actually do a few dice more of damage by a single class 20th lvl wizard vs a MT/TN...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> Just wanted to correct you on 1 thing... a Cone of Cold cast by a 15th or 20th level caster is exactly identical.  The range is a set 60' cone and doesn't increase with level.  Damage id 1d6 per level, but to a max of 15d6.  Saves are not affected by caster level.  So they will be exactly the same, as will Fireballs (max 10d6), Lightning Bolts (max 10d6), Magic Missile (max 5 missiles at 9th lvl), and other attack spells of 5th lvl and below.  Even Freezing Sphere, a 6th level spell, is limited to 15 dice, though Chain Lightning, another 6th lvl spell, is limited to 20th lvl.
> 
> So only a small handful of attack spells will actually do a few dice more of damage by a single class 20th lvl wizard vs a MT/TN...




Sigh... See above, re: me being an idiot.

I should have chosen _horrid wilting_, or _delayed blast fireball_. The point stands, though, when it comes to any spell of 7th-level or higher.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Sigh... See above, re: me being an idiot.
> 
> I should have chosen _horrid wilting_, or _delayed blast fireball_. The point stands, though, when it comes to any spell of 7th-level or higher.



True... but then the question becomes "Would you trade 2 9th lvl spells and a few dice of damage for spells of 6th-7th lvl and up, for access to the entire Divine spells list, an additional 120 spell levels per day (a 66% increase over a vanilla wizard), powerful rebuke undead ability, Necromantic Potence +4, etc?"  I certainly know my answer, but I recognize that others may disagree.

Incidently, TN get Horrid Wilting as a class ability, and with Necromantic Potence, would do 19d6 vs a wizard's 20d6... almost no difference.


----------



## Felon (Oct 10, 2004)

Swack-Iron said:
			
		

> To me, this feels like a "let's give something to rogues for undead fights" mechanic, which the game was sorely lacking. Ever played a rogue in an undead-heavy campaign? Although useful for getting the party into the vampire lord's lair, completely useless in a fight.




"Useless"? Oh, you mean that he's denied the gross damage output that exceeds the party's fighter, barbarian, and pretty much everyone else? He just gets the damage of his actual weapon? Man, life's hard. 

We have a guy who complains whenever his rogue is denied sneak attack damage, and the party is swiftly resolving to simply thump him on the head whenever he starts up.   

Here's a quaint thought: maybe a rogue should actually be content to be the guy who gets the party into vampire lord's lair, due to receiving more skill points than God.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 10, 2004)

Hey now!  There are PLENTY of gods (even the one with the big G in his name), that have more skill ranks than a rogue! Especially a 1st level one!


----------



## Felon (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> True... but then the question becomes "Would you trade 2 9th lvl spells and a few dice of damage for spells of 6th-7th lvl and up, for access to the entire Divine spells list, an additional 120 spell levels per day (a 66% increase over a vanilla wizard), powerful rebuke undead ability, Necromantic Potence +4, etc?"




The answer seems pretty clear-cut. It's OTT. 



> I certainly know my answer, but I recognize that others may disagree.




Such is the nature of this board. The rule of thumb is "defend designers, blame players and DM's". You won't be able to get away with saying a class or feat is perhaps poorly-designed without folks crawling out of the woodwork to defend it. Now, if you were grousing about players or DM's who quote movie lines too much, you'd get 800 pages of rousing support like it was a major crisis. Welcome to ENWorld.   



> Incidently, TN get Horrid Wilting as a class ability, and with Necromantic Potence, would do 19d6 vs a wizard's 20d6... almost no difference.




OK, so in addition to dual progression, the TN also still has the Necromantic Potence ability that allows him to combine all his divine and arcane levels when casting necromantic spells? And he gets bonus necromantic spell-like abilities up all the way up to 9th-level? OK, this is getting absurd really quickly. Anywhere where the TN starts to look like it's coming up short, we can quickly find where the design compensates to caulk up the hole to make sure the TN doesn't come up *too* short, if at all. 

_"He can't do as much damage with cone of cold...oh wait, yes he can...well, he can't do as much damage with horrid wilting...he comes up a dice short...see, it's fine? And hey, even if you co-opt every ability in the world, remember you only get to use one per round! Foolproof game design saves the day again!"_

Yeah, right. Good arguing there, guys.   

Incidentally, all this busines about max spellcasting levels for MT's and TN's being 15/15 or 17/17 or whatever seems to overlook the fact that 3.5e now provides core rules for epic progressions that allow a class to have levels that go beyond those listed in the class progression table. The DMG states the epic MT as being able to keep stacking levels on and on forever. 

Now, if someone who has Libris Mortis can verify whether or not the TN's class co-opting class feature meets the criterion that it "accumulates as part of a repeated pattern", then it should increase pass 14th level as well, thereby allowing the TN access to hit 20/20.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

One note:  They changed the definition of Necromantic Potence.  Back in Tome and Blood, where the TN first appeared, it allowed him to add all of his levels together when casting Necro spells.  Now, it provides a flat bonus to caster level for all Necro spells:  +1 CL at 3rd, +2 at 6th, +3 at 9th, and +4 at 12th.

There isn't really a set pattern to the progression for caster levels as far as epic levels.  At 1st & 6th level, they get only Arcane advancement.  At 2nd & 7th, only Divine advancement.  By that progression, 11th and 12th lvl should be single progressions as well, but they aren't.  (If they were, it may help to balance the class...)


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 10, 2004)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Anyone able to give some details on Doresain? Does he still have a tenuous link to Nerull, the _Orb of Shadows_, and the Negative Material Plane?
> 
> Anything about the kingdom of ghouls he established, the White Kingdom, being a competative power to Erelhei-Cinlu, the Vault of the Drow?





Anyone?


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by Eric Anondson
> > Anyone able to give some details on Doresain? Does he still have a tenuous link to Nerull, the Orb of Shadows, and the Negative Material Plane?
> >
> ...



The White Kingdom is mentioned very briefly as a layer of the Abyss where Doresain lives.  None of the other things are mentioned.


----------



## Felon (Oct 10, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> One note:  They changed the definition of Necromantic Potence.  Back in Tome and Blood, where the TN first appeared, it allowed him to add all of his levels together when casting Necro spells.  Now, it provides a flat bonus to caster level for all Necro spells:  +1 CL at 3rd, +2 at 6th, +3 at 9th, and +4 at 12th.




Good lord...do we have a "shaking-head-in-disgust" smiley available here?

Y'know, if the prereqs were at least somewhat stringent--made it involve a little sacrifice--that could've redeemed the class, but they even screwed the pooch there. It's a walk-in. 



> There isn't really a set pattern to the progression for caster levels as far as epic levels.  At 1st & 6th level, they get only Arcane advancement.  At 2nd & 7th, only Divine advancement.  By that progression, 11th and 12th lvl should be single progressions as well, but they aren't.  (If they were, it may help to balance the class...)




Yep, would've made for a more balanced PrC in the short term, and provided that accumulation of class features in a "repeated pattern" to allow for long-term progression to epic levels. Hope the rest of the PrC's aren't like this, or it'll wind up in my no-fly list along with other smackdown books like _Book of Exalted Deeds_ and _Player's Guide to Fearun_, and continued an ugly trend of power-creep.

EDIT--btw, is safe to assume the TN has the same hit die, BAB, save bonuses, and skill points as a MT or wizard (i.e. horrible in all areas)?


----------



## Felon (Oct 10, 2004)

ooo, just remembered the quesiton I popped in here to ask in the first place: is there any mention of the avolakia, the race of necromantic aberrations that use the undead as both thralls and livestock?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 10, 2004)

I was thinking of going for TN with my currently 4th level Wizard-Necromancer but I realised it'd be a huge mistake for several reasons:

1) I only have wisdom 11 so I'd have to boost it to 12 at 8th level just to qualify for the class and I'd never get the high level cleric spells at all. (I didn't know about TN when I created the character, went for a straight wizard-necromancer build with str 7, dex 14, con 16, int 18, wis 11, cha 12.)
2) I'm just about to get into some real power from 5th to 7th level (Fireball, Charm Monster, Empowered Scorching Ray). It would mean putting that on hold for three levels.
3) I don't see this campaign ever going beyond 10th level anyway.
4) The party already has a cleric. As it's only a 3-player group I should stick to what I'm good at.

TN overpowered? Not for me.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Good lord...do we have a "shaking-head-in-disgust" smiley available here?
> 
> Y'know, if the prereqs were at least somewhat stringent--made it involve a little sacrifice--that could've redeemed the class, but they even screwed the pooch there. It's a walk-in.
> 
> ...



I haven't poured over every PrC in the book and added up the numbers, but the others don't seem as powerful as the TN, which really jumped out at me...

Yes, the saves, attack, skill pts, etc are all equal to MT or Wizard, lowest possible.


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 10, 2004)

To answer your question "would i trade two 9th level spells for 7th level and below cleric spells" not a chance. It sounds like the TN is a smidge more powerful than the MT, but still not as potent as the straight class. At the very least, the idea that this thing is absurdly powerful sounds like an exaggeration to say the least.


----------



## just__al (Oct 10, 2004)

Wow!  I'm drooling.  

 <shamless begging>
 Anybody planning on buying this soon at amazon.  I'd gladly take a share the love discount.

 al - at - heardfamily - dot - net

 </shamless begging>


----------



## jester47 (Oct 10, 2004)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Then make it a "positive burst" weapon.  Sneak attack has been defined as the ability to hit important/sensitive bits with some accuracy.  To turn it into nothing but a "bonus damage" mechanic robs it of its flavor.
> 
> I don't have the book, yet, so there may be something I'm missing.  From what I am seeing, though, I've got to agree with Sean.  Unless the weapon is somehow revealing vital spots or adding them where they didn't previously exist, sneak attack cannot be used.




First anyone reading this should go back and see my paragraph in the cited post about the language of this weapon ability.  Also also it needs to be pointed out that Ghost Strike only works on Incorporeal undead.  Against anything with a body, its a normal + whatever weapon.  Also it works like a ghost touch weapon meaning that spirits can weild it.  They can disarm an enemy, or sunder the weapon.  This is very much a two way street. 

I do not see the weapon as "revealing" or "creating" vital spots or adding them.  I see it as having a property that allows for the disruption of the kind of negative energy that makes a ghost.   

I see it kind of as an incorporeal undead vaccum.  Like a magnet and a bunch of filings.  You put the fililngs on a table top and spread them out.  This is our wraith.  If you have a magnet (our ghost strike weapon) and brush it by very quickly, you will get some filings (damaged wraith).  The longer you leave the magnet in range of the filings it gets more (a critical).  Then you could stick the magnet in the filings and use a circular motion to pick them up (a rogues sneak attack).  

Thats the thing about the Rogue's sneak attack.  He simply has time.  He has more time to line up the shot and hit a vital.  With this tool he has more time to stick the thing in the incorporeal undead and move it around some (as there are no vitals), thus draining it of its essesnce (like filings to a magnet) and doing more damage to the undead before it has a chance to react.  

The limiting factors are the DM's common sense and the fact that for it to be any more than ghost touch certain favorable conditions have to be met.  It comes no where close to making a rogue an incorporeal undead slayer, but might give him an edge in the occasional fight with them.  This is ok. (well maybe not if you are playing a Ghostwalk campaign but...)

Aaron.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 11, 2004)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I was thinking of going for TN with my currently 4th level Wizard-Necromancer but I realised it'd be a huge mistake for several reasons:
> 
> 1) I only have wisdom 11 so I'd have to boost it to 12 at 8th level just to qualify for the class and I'd never get the high level cleric spells at all. (I didn't know about TN when I created the character, went for a straight wizard-necromancer build with str 7, dex 14, con 16, int 18, wis 11, cha 12.)
> 2) I'm just about to get into some real power from 5th to 7th level (Fireball, Charm Monster, Empowered Scorching Ray). It would mean putting that on hold for three levels.
> ...



Yes, all dual progression types sacrifice a bit in the short term in order to benefit in the long term.  Meeting the entry requirements are where you are the weakest... a 6th lvl caster is much stronger than a 3/3 wizard cleric.  Once you start gaining the dual progression, you begin to catch up though.

Ironically, in our game, I'm on the path to becoming a dual caster (Psionic Theurge).  I was very happy just being a 7th lvl Psion and had no plans to multiclass, but then my character died.  My god offered to return me to life only if I became a Cleric in his name... he said he needed me for a special task.  While the party may have been able to get my body to a cleric somewhere for a Raise Dead spell, would it have worked if your own god didn't want it to (since he says he needed you to become a cleric for this quest)?  Could the party even afford a Raise Dead (which are pretty expensive and we were not an incredibly rich party)?  In character, how could I justify telling my god "no thanks..."?  So, next level I'll be taking Cleric lvl 1, then shifting into the dual progressing Psychic Theurge ASAP.  I'm really enjoying the character and campaign I'm in right now, so I hope we keep going long enough for that to happen...


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 11, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> The answer seems pretty clear-cut. It's OTT.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Someone want to loose an argument. 

You obviously haven't looked that closely at the epic progression for the MT. It gets half the spellcasting progression and fewer epic feats than any straight class would. And given how feat dependent epic spellcasting is, it renders the epic MT a wet blanket.

Forgetting about it. No, I'm just interpretting it correctly. Not to mention I haven't seen an epic prog for the TN yet, meaning that you would have to take 5 levels of the MT to reach the 20/20 point, and still wouldn't see any bonus epic feats. You wouldn't even be eligible for improved spell capacity at level 21.


----------



## PeterDonis (Oct 11, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> According to the promo material at WotC's site, the actual "translation" of the title is "From the Books of the Dead". Considering the title is supposedly "mangled celestial", the plural dative of "Libris Mortis" works okay, as I understand it.




No, a dative plural isn't correct--that would mean "to the books of the dead" or "for the books of the dead". "From the books of the dead" would be the ablative plural, "Ex Libris Mortis"--you need the preposition explicitly since there are a bunch of different ones that take the ablative case. This assumes that you allow "the dead" to be a singular noun, which is a little iffy, since it's really a plural term (in which case it would be "Ex Libris Mortium").

Sorry for the pedantry, but my high school Latin teacher would kill me if I let this go by.


----------



## Milkman Dan (Oct 11, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Sacred Purifier - a destroyer of the undead (5 levels)



I am _very_ interested in finding out what the prerequisites of this PrC are.  At the very least, I'd like to know if it's available to Lawful Neutral clerics.  Undead-hunting PrCs are on the rare side for neutral clerics.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 11, 2004)

Milkman Dan said:
			
		

> I am _very_ interested in finding out what the prerequisites of this PrC are.  At the very least, I'd like to know if it's available to Lawful Neutral clerics.  Undead-hunting PrCs are on the rare side for neutral clerics.



Nope, at least not "by the book", though certainly a DM can decide that you are eligible if you meet all the other requirements and it fits you (and your diety's) focus.

Any Good
Minimum +5 Will Save bonus
Knowledge Religion 8 ranks
Feat: Extra Turning
Able to cast 2nd lvl Divine spells
Able to turn undead


----------



## jester47 (Oct 11, 2004)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> Why? You don't have to be a 5th level wizard to have 8 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) or a 5th level cleric to have 8 ranks in Knowledge (Religion). You just need to be a 5th level character, which means that if you get your last wizard level at character level 5 (or have the Knowledge domain for your cleric levels), you don't even have to pay for the skills as cross-class




Nope, you still have to be able to cast Summon Undead II as a divine caster.  So to even start on the path of the TN you have to basicly have Wiz5/Sor5.

Its always been a PrC that you started at the 10th character level even in its 3.0 version in Tome and Blood.  

Aaron.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 11, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Nope, you still have to be able to cast Summon Undead II as a divine caster.  So to even start on the path of the TN you have to basicly have Wiz5/Sor5.
> 
> Its always been a PrC that you started at the 10th character level even in its 3.0 version in Tome and Blood.
> 
> Aaron.



Summon Undead II is a new 2nd lvl spell in LM... you can enter TrNec at 3/3.


----------



## jester47 (Oct 11, 2004)

PeterDonis said:
			
		

> No, a dative plural isn't correct--that would mean "to the books of the dead" or "for the books of the dead". "From the books of the dead" would be the ablative plural, "Ex Libris Mortis"--you need the preposition explicitly since there are a bunch of different ones that take the ablative case. This assumes that you allow "the dead" to be a singular noun, which is a little iffy, since it's really a plural term (in which case it would be "Ex Libris Mortium").
> 
> Sorry for the pedantry, but my high school Latin teacher would kill me if I let this go by.




Pete, 

However you should take into consideration that your HS latin teacher and my HS latin teacher and College Latin professor all teach Classical Latin.  Medieval latin, church latin, and the latin of the people durring roman times, all have different rules.  Classical (the one everyone learns in HS and college) is almost exclusivly (so I have been told) derived from the surviving works of Cicero and some of his contemporaries.  Basicly its very very propper latin.  

Still the title does not make sense.  But I think their explanation is pretty good.  Goes from Ex Libris Mortium to Libris Mortium, to Libris Mortis through the ages... Its a clever CYA. 

Aaron.


----------



## jester47 (Oct 11, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> Summon Undead II is a new 2nd lvl spell in LM... you can enter TrNec at 3/3.




Ahhhh CARK!  yeah, cause at 3/3 you are a 6th level character...
asljf'kljg'g
kgflk;g;gf;ljkfg
jkgfkjfdsajlkdfsjkl
jlkfdsakljfdjkldf

<Bangs head on keyboard>
DUH!

Ok.  Right. 


I think the sample statblock is wrong if the ranks in those skills are 6.  

I still think the class is OK.  He's only going to ever be able to cast 3 or 4 spells when he confront a PC.  And if a PC takes the class, well, thats ok too IMO.  Its really specialised.  Put them up against an angel or cleric of pelor or hunter of the dead or somthing. 

Aaron.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 11, 2004)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> I'm hoping they errata the boldfaced part, as it makes no sense (are you creating vital organs in the incorporeal creature so you can crit it? if so, can your buddies sneak attack and crit the undead, too? or are they only there the instant you make your attack? if so, can your buddies ready an action to attack those organs when you create them?).




I rather figure that the weapon enhancement lets you target the Negative Energy Conduit (tm) in the undead in question, sort of guiding you towards them.

My issue with it is that it's like they have a hate on for the incorporeal things.  So, it can crit or sneak attack incorporeal undead; what about corporeal undead, which, if anything, should be easier?

I guess I'm still stuck with Skullclan Hunter for my rogue-who-hates-undead goodness.

Brad


----------



## FireLance (Oct 11, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> There isn't really a set pattern to the progression for caster levels as far as epic levels.  At 1st & 6th level, they get only Arcane advancement.  At 2nd & 7th, only Divine advancement.  By that progression, 11th and 12th lvl should be single progressions as well, but they aren't.  (If they were, it may help to balance the class...)



Hey, stop thinking Mystic Theurge or True Necromancer and start thinking Mystic Theurge and True Necromancer. Am I correct in thinking that a Clr3/Wiz3/MT9/TN5 casts spells as a Clr16/Wiz16?


----------



## Mokona (Oct 11, 2004)

*More books like Libris Mortis...*

With Draconomicon: The Book of Dragons and Libris Mortis: The Book of Undead done so well I have high hopes for Anathema: The Book of Aberrations (especially since I'm not overly fond of aberrations now).

1.  Which monster type should get a book next (i.e. which one do you want most and which one would you use most)?

2.  Should the next monster type book be a thicker, expensive book like Draconomicon ($40) or a thinner, cheaper book like Libris Mortis ($30)?

3.  What name would you pick for your choice of a monster type book?

____: The Book of Fey
____: The Book of Elementals
____: The Book of Giants
____: The Book of Constructs
____: The Book of Oozes

Would it make sense to have a monster subtype themed book (in the tradition of Draconomicon) like The Book of Chaotic?

Do you think WotC will ever do any of these books?


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 11, 2004)

I think a book about shapechangers would be pretty righteous. I mean Slaves of the Moon was great and all...but let's see if WotC can top it. *doubtful*


----------



## teitan (Oct 11, 2004)

*Ghostwalk*

Ok, I didn't think of this before but it just hit me pretty good... how useful would this book be in a Ghostwalk campaign? I love me some Ghostwalk but wanted some more to add to it outside of BoVD and the odd book out there... Would this book be keen for a GW game?

Jason


----------



## johnsemlak (Oct 11, 2004)

[quote-jester47]
However you should take into consideration that your HS latin teacher and my HS latin teacher and College Latin professor all teach Classical Latin. Medieval latin, church latin, and the latin of the people durring roman times, all have different rules. Classical (the one everyone learns in HS and college) is almost exclusivly (so I have been told) derived from the surviving works of Cicero and some of his contemporaries. Basicly its very very propper latin.

Still the title does not make sense. But I think their explanation is pretty good. Goes from Ex Libris Mortium to Libris Mortium, to Libris Mortis through the ages... Its a clever CYA.

Aaron.[/quote]
I'm actually surprised they bothered to CYA.  DOn't think it was really necessary.  I mean, I really can't believe the complaints of the few remaining Latin teachers could have hurt sales.

The actually effort they put into covering up the Latin mistake ought to appease some people though,[


----------



## CrusadeDave (Oct 11, 2004)

*True Necromancer Underpowered.*



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Hey, stop thinking Mystic Theurge or True Necromancer and start thinking Mystic Theurge and True Necromancer. Am I correct in thinking that a Clr3/Wiz3/MT9/TN5 casts spells as a Clr16/Wiz16?




This would be the only way I could see this Prestige Class being Playable.

Sticking with the straight True Necromancer starting at 7th level would be supremely unplayable for long periods of time.

In my campaign, my best player is playing a Mystic Theurge. He uses his spells perfectly, uses his Luck Domain Power aggressively on Spell Penetration rolls, and is one of the most dynamic and creative casters I've ever seen in my 12 years of RPGing.

His character is by far the weakest member of the party. His Cohort is more powerful then he is.

Anyone who thinks the TN is going to be more powerful then the MT needs only look at one thing:

At 9th level, a Clr 3/Wiz 3/MT 4 is going to be casting 4th level spells.
At 9th level, a Clr 3/Wiz 3/TN 4 is going to be casting 3rd level spells.

I can't imagine my player being another level behind the casting tree. You think MT starts off slow, is painful in the mid levels, gets better by upper mid, and is finally balanced possibly overbalanced in the uppergame? 

I can't imagine any TNecros surviving long enough to get Dimension Door at 11th level. And they'll need it to escape the hoardes of mid level heroes that will want to get XP from his bloated CR.


----------



## dargoth3 (Oct 11, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> Summon Undead II is a new 2nd lvl spell in LM... you can enter TrNec at 3/3.





Summon Undead 1-5 spells have actually been around for years they orgionally appeared in the 1ed Lords of Darkness source book for the Forgotten Realms, the latest version of the Spells where published in The Players guide to Faerun


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 11, 2004)

> By Makona:
> 3. What name would you pick for your choice of a monster type book?
> 
> ____: The Book of Fey
> ...




I just gotta say I loved themed books!  Much prefer a theme than the old choose a class/race and do a book about them.  Books on cold areas, deserts, the forests, serpent folk and particular alignments rock.  I really am for this 3.5 way of doing the books (even though a couple haven't lived up to all expectations - notably Complete Divine).

When a player wants something in particular then these books make it easier to refer them to.  More usable by DM and players too.

To answer your question I am not sure which monster/group I would like to see next.  Giants would be great, but in our CS we don't have all the varieties.  Elementals would be nice, what about goblinoids?  I can't get enough of the basic evil races like orcs, but these are perhaps too narrow in focus.  I just can't pick exactly what group should get a book.  All chaos creatures may be a bit muddled too, especially for a whole book.  Though a batch of new chaotic monsters in a Chaotic Book (in the vein of BED & BoVD - two of my absolute favs) now that would rock!
Connors


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 11, 2004)

I'd love books about non-cutesey (mostly) fey, giants, genies and elementals (especially if it updated a lot of Al-Qadim content, like tasked genies), underwater creatures, fiends or goblinoids/orcs/kobolds.


----------



## Jolly Giant (Oct 11, 2004)

As tired as I am of the whole MT/TN dsicussion, I'm still gonna pipe in with my 2 cents worth:

I'm now gonna sit down and make a wiz3/clr3/TN14/MT10 for my epic campaing. Taking Practised Spellcaster twice, he will be able to cast spells like a wiz30 and a clr30, at level 30! At that level the classes just might be over-powered.

However, to get that kind of power, he's given up a total of 6 regular feats (4 wiz-bonus feats, plus the 2 PS) and 3 bonus epic feats, if you compare him to a straight wiz. Compared to a straight clr, he's still used up those 2 PS's, lost 13 levels of rebuking power and lost out on 3 bonus epic feats.

The more I think about it, the more underpowered he sounds...


----------



## Jolly Giant (Oct 11, 2004)

As for what king of book I'd like to see next in this "series", I'm a little undecided. What I could have used right now is a book on fiends and a book on celestials. However, my current planar campaign will probably be over within six months and the need won't be as pressing. I'll probably want to start something completely different after that, but as I'm not really sure what I don't know what kind of book I'll need either.

Giants would be good, though!   Yeah, put down one vote for "Libris Maximus" or possibly "Encyclopaedia Titanica"!


----------



## Garnfellow (Oct 11, 2004)

Could someone please provide some details on the gravetouched ghoul?


----------



## Cold0 (Oct 11, 2004)

I think that the MT/TN discussion is quite interesting, but is it possible to some more infos about other aspects of _Libris Mortis_ as feats, monsters, template and prestige classes? Just a bit, while I'm waiting my Amazon- delivered    book...


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Oct 11, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Pete,
> 
> However you should take into consideration that your HS latin teacher and my HS latin teacher and College Latin professor all teach Classical Latin.  Medieval latin, church latin, and the latin of the people durring roman times, all have different rules.  Classical (the one everyone learns in HS and college) is almost exclusivly (so I have been told) derived from the surviving works of Cicero and some of his contemporaries.  Basicly its very very propper latin.
> 
> ...




The rules for Ecclestical Latin are based on Vulgar Latin, the common tongue spoken even in Cicero's time. They are indeed more relaxed and free, but the basics of the tongue are no different. "Libris Mortis" has the same meaning in Ante-Classical, Golden Age Classical, Silver Age Classical, Second Golden Age Classical, Post-Classical, Vulgar, Ecclestical and Neo-Latin -- dat/abl Books of Death.

What I think has happened here is that someone at WotC marketing tried to be clever when he should have kept it simple. I would imagine that the original intent was "Liber Mortis" to play on "Rigor Mortis" -- the correct impulse, though I could see "Libri" to be proper, since "Liber" was typically just a long scroll. But then someone remembered a long ago Latin lesson, and tried to make the two words agree by giving them the same ending (though the "i" in the suffixes have different values -- the pronunciation is "li'-brees mor-tis") and before someone thought to grab a dictionary, it was on the books.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 11, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I remember the early days of d20 when some third party publishers were putting out books with massively overpowered PrCs on the justification that they were intended as NPCs/sold their soul/whatever. That doesn't wash then and it doesn't wash now, IMO.
> 
> _If_ it is overpowered, that is.




Picking on Green Ronin again with their Secret College of Necromancy eh? Shame on you. 

To a point, I agree. However, I think that making such classes like equal to CL +1 for determining experience points awards and other factors helps even them out nicely and makes their CR a little better when players do wind up fighting them.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 11, 2004)

I'd like to give everyone more info, but I read very slowly.  I can give you some impressions of the beginning of the book.

Interesting discussion about the feeding habits and food requirements of each type of undead, along with a list of all the undead and what book they are in (noticed at least one editing error already as the effigy is listed as coming from book M, which is not in the list of books in the legend at the bottom)

I'm still not sure about the concept of a city of undead or, if such a city existed why any wizard would go through the process of trying to become a lich, when you could instead get turned into an undead by their wonderful 48 hour "transform any person into undead without losing memories, skills or giving you any disadvantages(other than the loss of one level)" plan.

There seems to be a large list of new undead creatures in the back, although I haven't looked through them yet.

The feats seem to be split about equally between feats useable by undead, feats useable against undead, and feats useable by people who create undead.

There is a list of undead monster classes and a discussion about undead player characters.

A relatively short list of new spells, a discussion on when and how to use undead in your campaign and a handy list of premade skeletons, vampires, and zombies (with the full stats of the templates applied to various creatures)

PrC List:

Death's Chosen - mortal pledged to an undead creature
Dirgesinger - a bard with necromantic abilities
Master of Radiance - channel the power of the sun
Master of Shrouds - control incorporeal undead
Pale Master - control over undead without giving up arcane power
Sacred Purifier - priests specializing in destroying undead
True Necromancer - combine arcane and divine power to be a more powerful necromancer

Undead Prestige Classes (PrC takeable only be undead creatures):

Ephemeral Exemplar - paragons of incorporealness
Lurking Terror - quintessential hunting undead, silent predators
Master Vampire - uses force of personality to control more spawn
Tomb Warden - selfless, undying protectors of the dead


----------



## Cold0 (Oct 11, 2004)

Good work, Majoru Oakheart  

Don't worry! I have all the time (3 or more weeks...) to wait while you are reading _Libris Mortis_ 

Regards,


----------



## Gez (Oct 11, 2004)

Mokona said:
			
		

> 1.  Which monster type should get a book next (i.e. which one do you want most and which one would you use most)?




I'd say Outsider (but maybe that's what the Book of Exalted Darkness & Vile Deeds was about), Magical Beasts (the lamias, sphinxes, dragonnes, giant eagles/owls, unicorns, worgs, winter wolves, etc.) and Fey.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 11, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> I'd say Outsider (but maybe that's what the Book of Exalted Darkness & Vile Deeds was about), Magical Beasts (the lamias, sphinxes, dragonnes, giant eagles/owls, unicorns, worgs, winter wolves, etc.) and Fey.




My vote is for Constructs.  I loves me some golems.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 11, 2004)

Cold0 said:
			
		

> I think that the MT/TN discussion is quite interesting, but is it possible to some more infos about other aspects of _Libris Mortis_ as feats, monsters, template and prestige classes? Just a bit, while I'm waiting my Amazon- delivered    book...




I point you to my review on my site.


----------



## Aeolius (Oct 11, 2004)

Mokona said:
			
		

> Which monster type should get a book next (i.e. which one do you want most and which one would you use most)?




Hags


----------



## Cold0 (Oct 11, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> I point you to my review on my site.




I have just read our review, Nightchilde-2... but I want see more details :


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 11, 2004)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Hags




Why would you want a sourcebook about my ex-wife?    

(Sorry, couldn't resist...)


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 11, 2004)

Mokona said:
			
		

> 3.  What name would you pick for your choice of a monster type book?




Control Freak: The Book of Rules Lawyers.


----------



## seankreynolds (Oct 11, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Just curious then Shawn, are you gonna review Liber Mortis then?




The closest you're going to get to a review from me are these two articles:
10 Reasons for a Player to get LM 
10 Reasons for a DM to get LM 




			
				jester47 said:
			
		

> That seems to be a fairly limited view of the ability and dare I say the mechanics?  Its a weapon type.  Its magical property of a single weapon that does more damage to incorporeal undead if you 1) roll well and get a crit threat 2) *Sneak up on* an incorporeal undead and hit it if you have a level of Rogue.  So as balnace goes, it does not seem that bad.




As balance goes, it's not bad. In a "makes sense/breaks an important game-physics rule and thus makes no sense" way it's very bad.

The rogue's SA ability is defined as, "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself from her attack, she can strike a *vital spot* for extra damage.... A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernable anatomies—undead ... lack vital areas to attack.."
The critical hit entry in the glossary defines a crit as, "A hit that strikes a vital area."

Both mechanics are defined as striking vital spots. Undead (ignoring vampires for the moment) don't have vital spots and can't be SA'd or critted. Introducing a weapon ability with a game mechanic that lets you SA/crit a rogue means that somehow that weapon ability is creating vital spots in the undead creature, letting you strike them, and (if your friends can't take advantage of those vital spots) instantly making those vital spots vanish again as soon as you withdraw your weapon ... well, it makes no sense in terms of how easy it would be to make a weapon do that, and why wouldn't it be more efficient to just make the weapon hit harder (like an enhancement bonus) or add positive energy to the damage.

As soon as you open the door for using the SA/crit mechanic on undead, you're saying that a character with Improved Critical (a guy who knows how to strike vital spots in a target ("you know how to hit where it hurts") is more effective with this weapon property against undead. You're saying someone with the _keen edge_ spell on their weapon (and thus the "improving its ability to make telling blows") is better at using this weapon property against undead. You're saying that the master rogue (Rog20) is amazingly good at using this weapon property to harm undead.

Excuse me, *incorporeal* undead, creatures doubly immune to vital-spot attacks because they're undead (and thus have no vital spots) and because they're incorporeal (and thus have no spots at all).

Introducing a game mechanic that lets you SA/crit undead is like introducing a new fire spell that is "so hot it even hurts creatures with the fire descriptor who would normally be immune to fire." See how that makes no sense? A fire elemental is immune to all fire damage, but _this_ spell is "special" and its fire is "so cool" that it can hurt even a fire elemental, _a creature made out of fire_. An undead is immune to sneak attacks and critical hits because it has no vital spots, but this new weapon property is "special" and its damage is "so cool" that it can _strike vital spots in a creature that doesn't have vital spots_.

{So mechanicly it works sort of like a burst weapon property.}

Which would explain the crit part (though it doesn't explain at all why a guy who does 1d8+8 points of damage is better with this special weapon than the guy who just does 1d8+1 ... the precedent for burst mechanics still affecting crit-immune creatures is that the burst effect is constant and is what is still applied ... the way this weapon property works means that its "positive energy burst" its more effective in the hands of a guy with 30 Str than a guy with 10 Str, which implies that the power relies on something in the user rather than a positive energy burst from the weapon).

But saying it works like a burst weapon property doesn't explain how a sneak attack does more damage with this property. The "positive energy burst" triggers when the incorporeal undead is flanked? Flat-footed? Fooled by a feint? It makes no sense.

There's already a property that gives extra damage against undead that doesn't imply you're hitting a vital spot: _undead-bane_. _Holy_ also does bonus damage against most undead. I wouldn't have a problem with a _positive energy_ property that worked like _flaming_ or even _flaming burst_ because (as weird as it is that burst weapons work on undead) there's a precedent for that. But there is *no* precedent for sneak attacks working on undead, ever, and there's a reason for that (because of the reason why SAs work and why undead are immune to them).

Making SAs apply (and to a lesser extent, crits apply) to crit-immune creatures opens up some weird doors in the game rules and has the potential to introduce serious problems later. If I can make this weapon property for incorporeal undead, can I make an equivalent property for corporeal undead? If I have a _ghost strike vorpal_ weapon, does that mean I can cut off the head of an incorporeal undead, killing it instantly? Can an assassin (PrC) use a _ghost strike_ weapon to make a death attack (an attack triggered when you do a sneak attack that deals damage)? (The death attack normally would have no effect because it's a Fort save that doesn't affect objects and undead are immune to such things, but you're already using something undead should be immune to).

{I interpret the "critical" on this as if it touches the area occupied by an incorporeal undead too much, it takes a lot of positive energy damage.}

That follows the precedent set by burst weapons, yes.

{A sneak attack would be where the rogue sneaks up on it and just puts the sword in its space for a longer time than it would be there if you "chopped it in half."  Thus more damage.}

1) That's not what a sneak attack is; a sneak attack is not "holding a weapon in the target for a longer time," it's "strike{ing} a *vital spot* for extra damage"
2) Your reasoning implies that (a) anyone ought to be able to hold their weapon in an incorporeal undead longer than normal and thus do more damage to it, (b) ammunition like arrows and bolts should do more damage in successive rounds because it can get stuck in the target, (c) *all* creatures in the game should be subject to these house rules, not just undead targeted by rogues with a _ghost-strike_ weapon.

So ... (1) You're changing the definition of what a sneak attack is, rather than realizing the problem is in the weapon property. You're fixing the wrong problem. (2) You don't want to Go There.

{The sneak attack and the critical maechanic just seem to be there out of convenience rather than creating a new mechanic for the weapon.}

Convenience is a poor excuse for game design if it breaks deliberate design constraints put into the game because of game-physics purposes.

{However while not conceptually bad, I think the language of the rule could be written better.  Instead of "...can deliver sneak attacks or critical hits..." a better way to say it would be "...allows the extra damage from attacks that would normally be criticals or successful sneak attacks."}

Which still means that a character with the skill or magic to hit a creature in its vital spots is going to do more damage with this weapon than someone not so trained...

{Using this interpretation and this language, you don't have your internal organ problem.}

... and thus we do have the internal organ problem.



			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> Then make it a "positive burst" weapon.  Sneak attack has been defined as the ability to hit important/sensitive bits with some accuracy.  To turn it into nothing but a "bonus damage" mechanic robs it of its flavor.




Exactly.



			
				jester47 said:
			
		

> First anyone reading this should go back and see my paragraph in the cited post about the language of this weapon ability.  Also also it needs to be pointed out that Ghost Strike only works on Incorporeal undead.




See my point above about incorporeal undead's double-justification of immunity to crits.

{Also it works like a ghost touch weapon meaning that spirits can weild it.  They can disarm an enemy, or sunder the weapon.  This is very much a two way street.}

Irrelevant to this discussion, as that's an aspect of the _ghost touch_ property, which nobody is arguing about.

{I see it kind of as an incorporeal undead vaccum.  Like a magnet and a bunch of filings.  You put the fililngs on a table top and spread them out.  This is our wraith.  If you have a magnet (our ghost strike weapon) and brush it by very quickly, you will get some filings (damaged wraith).  The longer you leave the magnet in range of the filings it gets more (a critical).  Then you could stick the magnet in the filings and use a circular motion to pick them up (a rogues sneak attack).}

Except you're still not using the correct definition of a sneak attack. Why isn't the rogue able to do this with an _undead-bane_ weapon against incorporeal or corporeal undead? Why isn't the rogue able to do this with a nonmagical weapon against undead, or against any other creature immune to crits?

{Thats the thing about the Rogue's sneak attack.  He simply has time.  He has more time to line up the shot and hit a vital.}

Again, you're making up additional rules to justify your altered interpretation of core rules so that this weapon property doesn't break the game rules. A rogue doesn't have "more time" when she gets a SA from flanking. She doesn't have "more time" when her opponent is flat-footed at the start of initiative. She doesn't have "more time" when her enemy is stunned. If she had "more time" she'd get more attacks in a round. If it was a matter of "more time," *any* character should be able to do this. In fact, there is a "more time to line up a shot" mechanic, it's called coup de grace, and *any* character can do it, _but it doesn't work on undead because they don't have vital spots_ and spending time to line if for a "good shot" doesn't do any good.

{With this tool he has more time to stick the thing in the incorporeal undead and move it around some (as there are no vitals), thus draining it of its essesnce (like filings to a magnet) and doing more damage to the undead before it has a chance to react.}

So this weapon property gives the rogue "more time" ... *and at the same time it* gives off a positive energy burst effect?

... One of my characters is a rogue who never can confirm a crit, and the "more-time-rogue" part of the _ghost strike_ ability would be perfect for him. Can I get a version of this weapon property that does only the "more-time-rogue" ability for cheaper than the listed full version cost? 
... I have another character who has no sneak attack but crits like a madman and has a special ring that doubles all positive energy damage he deals to creatures. The "positive energy burst" half of the _ghost strike_ weapon property would be perfect for him. Can I get a version of this weapon property that just has the "positive energy burst" part, and cheaper than the listed full version?

Do you see how your game-rule justification of a flawed rule is just making the problem worse? The problem isn't in the definition of sneak attack, incorporeal, or critical hit, it's in _how this weapon property uses those rules_. The problem is the weapon property.



			
				teitan said:
			
		

> Ok, I didn't think of this before but it just hit me pretty good... how useful would this book be in a Ghostwalk campaign? I love me some Ghostwalk but wanted some more to add to it outside of BoVD and the odd book out there... Would this book be keen for a GW game?




It would be handy, though more so for undead monsters/NPCs than for undead PCs.


----------



## Gez (Oct 11, 2004)

What about the MiniHandbook PrC, the Skullclan Hunter IIRC?


----------



## Flynn (Oct 11, 2004)

*LM Feats?*

Not a lot's been said about the feats found in Libris Mortis. Could someone post the names of the feats, and perhaps indicate those that would be good for the basic four character classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard) and why? I'm trying to judge how this book might impact the PCs in my current game, and feats are almost always the first thing they look for.

Thanks in advance,
Flynn


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 11, 2004)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> Introducing a game mechanic that lets you SA/crit undead is like introducing a new fire spell that is "so hot it even hurts creatures with the fire descriptor who would normally be immune to fire."




You mean similar to the way the Piercing Cold metamagic feat from Frostburn works?    

One possible justification might be that rather than actually striking at a vulnerable physical spot of the undead, it allows sneak attacks against a "metaphysical" vulnerable spot, targeting the connection to the negative energy plane inherent in all undead, which causes a sort of "essence shredding" effect that results in hit point damage.  Only weapons with these properties, or special abilities of say a prestige class, can target this connection.

At least, if ever asked, that's how I'm going to explain it.

Or I'll just hand wave it away and say "It's magic.  Who knows how these things work?!"


----------



## Mercule (Oct 11, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> You mean similar to the way the Piercing Cold metamagic feat from Frostburn works?



Well, I guess that's one way to solve the feat glut that currently exists -- put out feats that are a no-brainer to exclude.

Backing up a bad mechanic by citing another bad mechanic really doesn't help the case.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 11, 2004)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Well, I guess that's one way to solve the feat glut that currently exists -- put out feats that are a no-brainer to exclude.
> 
> Backing up a bad mechanic by citing another bad mechanic really doesn't help the case.




I wasn't really backing up the "sneak attack undead" thing with that particular example, I was being more..mean spirited towards the fact that they came up with a feat that works the way Piercing Cold does.    

I'm not a fan of how sneak attacks work by any stretch of the imagination.  I really think it's too powerful as-is, personally.  I mean, really, all a rogue has to do to devastate most opponents is flank a target.  Gods help your poor monster if two rogues are doing the flanking together....


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 11, 2004)

Flynn said:
			
		

> Not a lot's been said about the feats found in Libris Mortis. Could someone post the names of the feats, and perhaps indicate those that would be good for the basic four character classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard) and why? I'm trying to judge how this book might impact the PCs in my current game, and feats are almost always the first thing they look for.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Flynn




General Feats
Corpsecrafter, Bolster Resistance, Deadly Chill, Destruction Retribution, Hardened Flesh, Nimble Bones, Daunting Presence, Enduring Life, Lasting Life, Empower Turning, Ghost Scarred, Graft Flesh, Heighten Turning, Improved Toughness, Mother Cyst, Necromantic Presence, Necromantic Might, Necropotent, Quicken Turning, Requiem, Stitched Flesh Familiar, Tomb-Tainted Soul, Tomb-Born Fortitude, Tomb-Born Resilience, Tomb-Born Vitality, Undead Leadership, Unquenchable Flame of Life, Vampire Hunter

Divine Feats
Divine Accuracy, Profane Lifeleech, Profane Vigor, Sacred Vengeance, Sacred Vitality, Spurn Death's Touch

Metamagic Feats
Energize Spell, Enervate Spell, Fell Animate, Fell Drain, Fell Frighten, Fell Weaken

Monstrous Feats
Baleful Moan, Contagious Paralysis, Corrupted Wild Shape, Death Master, Eviscerator, Empowered Ability Damage, Endure Sunlight, Ghastly Grasp, Improved Energy Drain, Spell Drain, Improved Paralysis, Improved Turn Resistance, Life Drain, Lifebond, Necrotic Reserve, Positive Energy Resistance, Quicken Manifestation

As for what they do, if you are interested ask on some.  I'll, of course, couch them in vague phrases so as to not violate copyright.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 11, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> I wasn't really backing up the "sneak attack undead" thing with that particular example, I was being more..mean spirited towards the fact that they came up with a feat that works the way Piercing Cold does.



Ah, good.  Then I won't sweat much that my post came off way snarkier than intended.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 11, 2004)

When it comes to sneak attack, I tend to watch feats that modify it very carefully. Nothing can increse either the damage dice or the range in my campaign. I've seen too many supplements try that and it always ends in tears as I can field more thieves guilds than the party's one lone rogue can handle.


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 11, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> I wasn't really backing up the "sneak attack undead" thing with that particular example, I was being more..mean spirited towards the fact that they came up with a feat that works the way Piercing Cold does.




You're thinking of mere cold. *Piercing Cold* deals with _COLD_. The kind of cold that can freeze-dry a white dragon. We're talking Kelvin Scale cold. The kind of stuff that, at the lower end, gives us metallic hydrogen and Helium II. Now, true, it's doubtful *Piercing Cold* ever gets that bad, but you can still produce temperatures so low even creatures unaffected by normal cold are harmed. So in that area *Piercing Cold* is not broken.


----------



## sh0 (Oct 11, 2004)

Anyone want to comment on the art? I was impressed by the art in Draconimicon, is it close to being as good?


----------



## mangamuscle (Oct 11, 2004)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> Introducing a game mechanic that lets you SA/crit undead is like introducing a new fire spell that is "so hot it even hurts creatures with the fire descriptor who would normally be immune to fire." See how that makes no sense? A fire elemental is immune to all fire damage, but _this_ spell is "special" and its fire is "so cool" that it can hurt even a fire elemental, _a creature made out of fire_. An undead is immune to sneak attacks and critical hits because it has no vital spots, but this new weapon property is "special" and its damage is "so cool" that it can _strike vital spots in a creature that doesn't have vital spots_.




I think that was a bad example. Frostburn has a feat that makes cold spells so cold that they can harm even creatures with cold immunity. The inverse I saw once in the anime *Bastard!* where Dark Scneider managed to cast a fire spell so hot it damaged even a fire immune Efreeti. If you going to say "anime is non-cannon" then must have not read what Jeff Grub wrote "The heat here is so intense that even creatures immune to flame like fire elementals take 1d2 points of damage per turn unless protectyed by Kossuth" in 1the st edition Manual of the Planes, page 40.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 11, 2004)

sh0 said:
			
		

> Anyone want to comment on the art? I was impressed by the art in Draconimicon, is it close to being as good?



I wouldn't put it in the same league as Draconomicon, but it has nice art by lots of WotC regulars, including Tom Baxa, Jeff Easley, Steve Ellis, Wayne England, Wayne Reynolds, Brian Snoddy, etc.


----------



## Pants (Oct 11, 2004)

Isn't piercing cold the feat that deals Cold damage to undead when a character uses Turns? Or is this something completely different?


----------



## Sammael (Oct 11, 2004)

It wasn't a bad example; rather, Frostburn's Piercing Cold feat is an example of extremely poor game design.


----------



## JustKim (Oct 11, 2004)

Yes, it is a bad example. A fire elemental may not burn from fire damage, but a fire powerful enough will quickly burn away its fuel supply and leave the fire elemental weakened, if not extinguished, better than a sword ever could. Meanwhile earth and water elementals have no resistance to damage from spells that use earth or water as a weapon.

On another note, did anyone else notice the Master of Shrouds has gone from a minimum 8th level PrC to a minimum 4th level PrC?


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 11, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Isn't piercing cold the feat that deals Cold damage to undead when a character uses Turns? Or is this something completely different?




No, that's something else.  Piercing Cold lets you modify a spell that deals cold damage so that it affects creatures of the cold subtype (which are normally immune to cold blah blah blah).


----------



## devilish (Oct 11, 2004)

I can see Sean's point -- sneak attack is a core component of the system,
right at the basics, and everything that's come since then has
that assumption in it.   Changing it with just a weapon (unless it
was very high, +5 or artifact level) unbalances a basic of the game.
IMO, You would almost have to re-engineer the rogue class to get something
like that to work -- or create a new class of Rogue/Undead Hunter, instead
of a weapon that anyone can wield.

However, I have experienced this personally and was extremely frustrated.
Played a WOTC-published module that was loaded with undead, and 
with some of them having damage-reduction, the fighter couldn't get
decent damage in (and ended up getting in the face of a lich), and my BAB
as a rogue was nowhere near where I could attack, even with a nat 20.
And my usual crossbow maneuver was useless -- regular bolts!

The spellcasters, meanwhile, tore up the dungeon with heal spells, fire spells,
undeath-to-death, etc.  While it was fun to watch like a movie, the 
fighter and I ended up sitting out most of the game (and this mega-
adventure lasted months!)

In this case, how would you make an undead-prevalent game more balanced
for fighter/thieves?

-D


----------



## Hjorimir (Oct 11, 2004)

As to follow-up books...

A serious book on fey (as said before, not cutsey fey)
A book on elementals (that really focuses on genies of all types)
A book on the baatezu
A book of the tanar'ri
A book on illithids and the giths


----------



## Sammael (Oct 11, 2004)

JustKim said:
			
		

> A fire elemental may not burn from fire damage, but a fire powerful enough will quickly burn away its fuel supply and leave the fire elemental weakened, if not extinguished, better than a sword ever could.



Eh. A fire elemental does not _have_ a fuel supply. It is composed of elemental fire, one of the "building blocks" of the D&D Multiverse, and thus not subject to laws of physics (or chemistry, as the case may be) in regard to transforming matter into energy.


----------



## mangamuscle (Oct 11, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Isn't piercing cold the feat that deals Cold damage to undead when a character uses Turns? Or is this something completely different?



Piercing cold does full damage to cold resistant creatures and half damage to cold immune creatures (undead or otherwise).

edit: edited mistake


----------



## mangamuscle (Oct 11, 2004)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Eh. A fire elemental does not _have_ a fuel supply. It is composed of elemental fire, one of the "building blocks" of the D&D Multiverse, and thus not subject to laws of physics (or chemistry, as the case may be) in regard to transforming matter into energy.



If you disregard the laws of physics (and common sense, you can't have tea and no tea  ) then the only law left in the bulding is WotC so there is no point in discussiong.
If you leave physics do their work, there can be fire so hot that it can dissipate fire and cold so cold that it can freeze ice.

I do undestand that the wording of this weapon that deals critical damage to undead was poorly done, but so was the example I am rebuking.

edit: clarified sentence


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 11, 2004)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Eh. A fire elemental does not _have_ a fuel supply. It is composed of elemental fire, one of the "building blocks" of the D&D Multiverse, and thus not subject to laws of physics (or chemistry, as the case may be) in regard to transforming matter into energy.




But, elemental fire is still subject to the rules of the D&Dverse as set down in the rule books. And if the folks at Wizards want a heat so hot it destroys elemental fire, they can have a heat so hot it destroys elemental fire.

Sensible schemes break down at the extremes.


----------



## JustKim (Oct 11, 2004)

> Eh. A fire elemental does not have a fuel supply. It is composed of elemental fire, one of the "building blocks" of the D&D Multiverse, and thus not subject to laws of physics (or chemistry, as the case may be) in regard to transforming matter into energy.



Where is it the behavior of fire was replaced in the core rules with a rule that "fire may never hurt fire, under any circumstance"? You've simply chosen to ignore one law of physics for the sake of fantasy, and then imposed another one because you've decided fire hurting fire is too much fantasy.

I'm sorry, I don't make that distinction. I think that the ability to circumvent immunities is perfectly reasonable and has a place in the game.


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 11, 2004)

Boards got wonky again.


----------



## jester47 (Oct 11, 2004)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> As balance goes, it's not bad. In a "makes sense/breaks an important game-physics rule and thus makes no sense" way it's very bad.



After reading your post, oh heck yeah.



> ...why wouldn't it be more efficient to just make the weapon hit harder (like an enhancement bonus) or add positive energy to the damage?
> 
> As soon as you open the door for using the SA/crit mechanic on undead, you're saying that a character with Improved Critical (a guy who knows how to strike vital spots in a target ("you know how to hit where it hurts") is more effective with this weapon property against undead. You're saying someone with the _keen edge_ spell on their weapon (and thus the "improving its ability to make telling blows") is better at using this weapon property against undead. You're saying that the master rogue (Rog20) is amazingly good at using this weapon property to harm undead.



I totally missed considering these factors...


> Excuse me, *incorporeal* undead, creatures doubly immune to vital-spot attacks because they're undead (and thus have no vital spots) and because they're incorporeal (and thus have no spots at all).
> 
> Introducing a game mechanic that lets you SA/crit undead is like introducing a new fire spell that is "so hot it even hurts creatures with the fire descriptor who would normally be immune to fire." See how that makes no sense? A fire elemental is immune to all fire damage, but _this_ spell is "special" and its fire is "so cool" that it can hurt even a fire elemental, _a creature made out of fire_. An undead is immune to sneak attacks and critical hits because it has no vital spots, but this new weapon property is "special" and its damage is "so cool" that it can _strike vital spots in a creature that doesn't have vital spots_.



Good point.  Ok this is the point where you convinced me and I started thinking about changinf the language to fix this...



> {So mechanicly it works sort of like a burst weapon property.}
> 
> Which would explain the crit part (though it doesn't explain at all why a guy who does 1d8+8 points of damage is better with this special weapon than the guy who just does 1d8+1 ... the precedent for burst mechanics still affecting crit-immune creatures is that the burst effect is constant and is what is still applied ... the way this weapon property works means that its "positive energy burst" its more effective in the hands of a guy with 30 Str than a guy with 10 Str, which implies that the power relies on something in the user rather than a positive energy burst from the weapon).
> 
> ...




So it seems that the Ghost Strike weapon property should be one where the weapon is a ghost touch weapon that also offers a positive energy burst and we completely cut out the problem of the sneak attack.  



> Making SAs apply (and to a lesser extent, crits apply) to crit-immune creatures opens up some weird doors in the game rules and has the potential to introduce serious problems later. If I can make this weapon property for incorporeal undead, can I make an equivalent property for corporeal undead? If I have a _ghost strike vorpal_ weapon, does that mean I can cut off the head of an incorporeal undead, killing it instantly?  Can an assassin (PrC) use a _ghost strike_ weapon to make a death attack (an attack triggered when you do a sneak attack that deals damage)? (The death attack normally would have no effect because it's a Fort save that doesn't affect objects and undead are immune to such things, but you're already using something undead should be immune to).




I agree.



> {I interpret the "critical" on this as if it touches the area occupied by an incorporeal undead too much, it takes a lot of positive energy damage.}
> 
> That follows the precedent set by burst weapons, yes.
> 
> ...




Well you convinced me.



> {Also it works like a ghost touch weapon meaning that spirits can weild it.  They can disarm an enemy, or sunder the weapon.  This is very much a two way street.}
> 
> Irrelevant to this discussion, as that's an aspect of the _ghost touch_ property, which nobody is arguing about.




This does make me ask the question:  Is it wise to have a property that is essentially is the combination of two properties?  As in the example I suggested above I stated that revising the ghost strike to be a ghost touch with a positive energy burst would make it a property composed of two properties.  When it comes to the value of the weapon this could be bad.

In this light, I would say that the property should be simply that it does an additional ammount of damage to incorporeal undead.  Looking at the properties, perhaps this property should be somthing that can only be added to a ghost touch weapon.  Not a positive energy burst as that would be useful against all undead, but a special damage bonus that is only useful against incorporeal undead.  I would propose 2d6.  So: 

The ghost strike weapon has the same properties as a ghost touch weapon except that it does an additional 2d6 damage against incorporeal undead.  

This makes sense.  It's simple.  Here is how I would back up the numbers:  A crit will in most situations get you an extra die but we have a potential for two.  Rogues got to apply Sneak Attack damage.  After first level this gets to be pretty hefty.  So two works there too.  Looking at bane weapons (which this almost is but not quite as it does not get an actual + to hit) 2d6 is the norm.  So since its bonus is really specific, and it basicly has two properties I would rate this one as a +2.  



> {I see it kind of as an incorporeal undead vaccum.  Like a magnet and a bunch of filings.  You put the fililngs on a table top and spread them out.  This is our wraith.  If you have a magnet (our ghost strike weapon) and brush it by very quickly, you will get some filings (damaged wraith).  The longer you leave the magnet in range of the filings it gets more (a critical).  Then you could stick the magnet in the filings and use a circular motion to pick them up (a rogues sneak attack).}
> 
> Except you're still not using the correct definition of a sneak attack. Why isn't the rogue able to do this with an _undead-bane_ weapon against incorporeal or corporeal undead? Why isn't the rogue able to do this with a nonmagical weapon against undead, or against any other creature immune to crits?
> 
> ...



Wow, you're right.  What an interesting trap I have fallen into...


> A rogue doesn't have "more time" when she gets a SA from flanking. She doesn't have "more time" when her opponent is flat-footed at the start of initiative. She doesn't have "more time" when her enemy is stunned. If she had "more time" she'd get more attacks in a round. If it was a matter of "more time," *any* character should be able to do this. In fact, there is a "more time to line up a shot" mechanic, it's called coup de grace, and *any* character can do it, _but it doesn't work on undead because they don't have vital spots_ and spending time to line if for a "good shot" doesn't do any good.
> 
> {With this tool he has more time to stick the thing in the incorporeal undead and move it around some (as there are no vitals), thus draining it of its essesnce (like filings to a magnet) and doing more damage to the undead before it has a chance to react.}
> 
> ...



Absolutly.  I was looking at the rule in a vaccum but forgot to consider how other rules worked with the rules the property was using.

Aaron.


----------



## Sammael (Oct 11, 2004)

JustKim said:
			
		

> Where is it the behavior of fire was replaced in the core rules with a rule that "fire may never hurt fire, under any circumstance"? You've simply chosen to ignore one law of physics for the sake of fantasy, and then imposed another one because you've decided fire hurting fire is too much fantasy.
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't make that distinction. I think that the ability to circumvent immunities is perfectly reasonable and has a place in the game.



A fire elemental comes from the Elemental Plane of Fire, the place described as the source of all fire in the Multiverse. I find it hard to believe that there can be any place hotter than that, yet fire elementals are comfortable living there, which to me implies that they don't continually take damage.

As for fuel, here's the quote about the Elemental Plane of Fire from the SRD: 

"Fire survives here without need for fuel or air, but flammables brought onto the plane are consumed readily."


----------



## green slime (Oct 11, 2004)

mangamuscle said:
			
		

> I think that was a bad example. Frostburn has a feat that makes cold spells so cold that they can harm even creatures with cold immunity. The inverse I saw once in the anime *Bastard!* where Dark Scneider managed to cast a fire spell so hot it damaged even a fire immune Efreeti. If you going to say "anime is non-cannon" then must have not read what Jeff Grub wrote "The heat here is so intense that even creatures immune to flame like fire elementals take 1d2 points of damage per turn unless protectyed by Kossuth" in 1the st edition Manual of the Planes, page 40.




Doesn't make more sense now than it did then...


----------



## Mercule (Oct 11, 2004)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> But, elemental fire is still subject to the rules of the D&Dverse as set down in the rule books. And if the folks at Wizards want a heat so hot it destroys elemental fire, they can have a heat so hot it destroys elemental fire.



Or, they could create a spell to drown water elementals, if they wanted.  Doesn't mean it isn't absurd.

Likewise, since it's WotC's rules, they could certainly create a longsword with a hilt so grippy, that no one with opposible thumbs could hold it.


----------



## Morbog of Ghetto D (Oct 11, 2004)

*When there's no more room in Hell...*

I have never been this excited about a WOTC publication ...ever.
I have been to both my local shops with no luck...

I'd recomend buying at your local hobby store... after all if you dont support the locals...there wont be anywhere to go buy cool gaming stuff..

Patience will pay off. Afterall most Undead have eternity to wait anyhow.

I hope this is as good as people are saying....and yes...the ratio for dragons to undead in my campaign is 1:1000.

Ghost walk and Frostburn look to be very well done too...Has WOTC turned the corner?....Unearthed Arcanna and Complete Warrior  were prety disappointing.


----------



## reanjr (Oct 11, 2004)

Queen Petite said:
			
		

> Thats easily the lamest name I've ever heard for a diety.
> 
> What's so special about that fellow?




The name Orcus is pulled directly from Roman mythology.  Orcus was one fo the names for Pluto (or the Greek Hades), god of the dead and the underworld.

In D&D, he is a staple.  He's been around almost forever in the game and people just like him for some reason.  I don't get it either.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 11, 2004)

I gotta agree with Sean this time.

A mechanic to do extra damage to undead is fine, but tying it directly to sneak attack is pretty wacked.

Maybe you could do something cool like limit the number of d6s to the attacker's effective cleric level with regard to turning undead.  But now it is an overly complicated mechanic that still does not explain why you need to flanking (or other) to do it...   Oh well.


----------



## jester47 (Oct 11, 2004)

Edited my post above to include a simple fix and a list of justifications for this fix.  All should know now that SKR kicked my butt and made me see the light.  Ghost Strike causes problems as written.

Also, I hope that WotC has a big red phone is Seans cave in San Diego so they can call him and get design advice.

Aaron.


----------



## Felon (Oct 11, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> No, that's something else.  Piercing Cold lets you modify a spell that deals cold damage so that it affects creatures of the cold subtype (which are normally immune to cold blah blah blah).




Actually, the description of Piercing Cold states that creatures with the cold subtype notice that the spell is uber-cold, but remain unaffected. That means the aforementioned white dragon wouldn't be affected. 

True, creatures normally immune to cold take half-damage, but cold immunity doesn't necessarily impart the cold subtype (although the inverse is true). Ghouls and vampires, for instance, can be affected by spells boosted by the piercing cold feat.


----------



## PeterDonis (Oct 11, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Pete,
> 
> However you should take into consideration that your HS latin teacher and my HS latin teacher and College Latin professor all teach Classical Latin.  Medieval latin, church latin, and the latin of the people durring roman times, all have different rules.  Classical (the one everyone learns in HS and college) is almost exclusivly (so I have been told) derived from the surviving works of Cicero and some of his contemporaries.  Basicly its very very propper latin.
> 
> ...




Yes, the Latin I learned in school (and in the dictionary I referred to to check my memory on 3rd declension nouns) is classical Latin, but I don't think the actual grammar and inflections changed much between that and medieval or modern church Latin. The pronunciation did, but I don't think the grammar did. After all, grammar is the main reason pedants have continued to learn Latin through the ages.  

That said, although I haven't read their explanation, it sounds like it was intended to convey the impression that the title isn't "real" Latin, just whatever "fake" Latin the "scholars" who assembled the work used. If so, I agree it's a fairly good way of framing the work.


----------



## Gez (Oct 12, 2004)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> You're thinking of mere cold. *Piercing Cold* deals with _COLD_. The kind of cold that can freeze-dry a white dragon. We're talking Kelvin Scale cold. The kind of stuff that, at the lower end, gives us metallic hydrogen and Helium II. Now, true, it's doubtful *Piercing Cold* ever gets that bad, but you can still produce temperatures so low even creatures unaffected by normal cold are harmed. So in that area *Piercing Cold* is not broken.




And similarly, you could do plasma fire, temperatures so hot, energy so intense, that the bonds between electrons and nucleons break, and all matter becomes a sort of ion soup. And then, you can crank up the temperature even higher, and get nucleus to break as well, and finally to dissolve everything into quarks. And maybe with another order of magnitude, you can "dissolve" quarks as well.

I'm sure an actual physicist would be more precise than me about that and give the actual estimated temperatures for those phenomenons.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 12, 2004)

Sammael said:
			
		

> It wasn't a bad example; rather, Frostburn's Piercing Cold feat is an example of extremely poor game design.



Agreed. If something is *immune* to cold, it's immune. If you want something that's colder, make it do more damage - that'll help against creatures with cold resistance, at least.


----------



## Signum (Oct 12, 2004)

I havent seen anyone mention yet that the cover and exterior for the book looks slightly different, and possibly better, than the picture seen on the wizards site. Am I the only one?


----------



## Pants (Oct 12, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> No, that's something else.  Piercing Cold lets you modify a spell that deals cold damage so that it affects creatures of the cold subtype (which are normally immune to cold blah blah blah).



Okay. Yep, that is stupid!


----------



## Jolly Giant (Oct 12, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Actually, the description of Piercing Cold states that creatures with the cold subtype notice that the spell is uber-cold, but remain unaffected. That means the aforementioned white dragon wouldn't be affected.




Ok, this makes Piercing Cold a whole lot less silly. Event with the feat, you still can't harm creatures with the cold subtype with a cold spell; only undead and other creatures normally immune to cold...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 12, 2004)

Piercing Cold (metamagic +1 spell level, only to spells with cold descriptor)
if creature has cold resistance, the resistance doesn't apply
if creature has cold immunity, they take half damage (save as normal for 1/4)
cold subtype: still unaffected by the spell
fire subtype: double normal damage instead of +50%


----------



## coyote6 (Oct 12, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> In this light, I would say that the property should be simply that it does an additional ammount of damage to incorporeal undead.  Looking at the properties, perhaps this property should be somthing that can only be added to a ghost touch weapon.  Not a positive energy burst as that would be useful against all undead, but a special damage bonus that is only useful against incorporeal undead.  I would propose 2d6.  So:
> 
> The ghost strike weapon has the same properties as a ghost touch weapon except that it does an additional 2d6 damage against incorporeal undead.




_Ghost touch_ is a +1-equivalent ability, so presumably _ghost strike_ would be more than +1 (since it includes _ghost touch's_ effects and more). However, a _ghost touch undead bane_ weapon can hit incorporeal foes and does +2d6+2 damage (from the _bane_ property), and is a total of +2 -- so _ghost strike_ would be inferior to this combination. 

Thus, I'd say _ghost strike_ would need to be at least +2d8 damage -- that would barely equal the extra damage of the _ghost touch + undead bane_ combo. Yet it would still be weaker, since it would affect many fewer targets (being useless against all those liches, vampires, skeletons, etc.). 

So maybe it ought to be +2d10, be +2d6 or +2d8 and have a burst effect (i.e., if critical hit is rolled, it deals extra d10s of damage, as _flaming burst_ & co.), or give some other minor extra benefit (nothing comes to mind immediately).


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 12, 2004)

Here's my take on critting (or Sneak attacking) the uncrittable.

I simply don't believe that undead, plants, constructs and elementals are wholly homogenous.

A lich still has a head, arms and legs. So do most constructs. Either has places that are stronger or weaker than others. Plants still have parts where a large part of the whole can be removed by attacking a weak point. Elementals often have the same.

Oozes, I almost completely agree with the 'no crits' stance (except in the case of the ooze creature template from SS).

IOW - all of these have places that are more vulnerable to damage than others.

I think that SA should have some way of being made to apply (most likely in a reduced capacity and based on the knowledge of the character). I think that crits should apply (but to a reduced degree). I think all this should be done without necessarily needing to invent a magical explanation.

I think that immunity to crits (along with a lot of other qualities, but that's for another debate) should NOT be a part of a creatures type, but a part of a specific creatures entry.

IE - a stone wall golem would be immune to crits - it's just a mobile wall. A regular stone golem should not be. A stone golem which requires it's instructions to be written on a piece of paper and placed in a hollow within it's head should certainly be vulnerable to crits, and should be subject to the ability of a vorpal sword to boot.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 12, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Piercing Cold (metamagic +1 spell level, only to spells with cold descriptor)
> if creature has cold resistance, the resistance doesn't apply
> if creature has cold immunity, they take half damage (save as normal for 1/4)
> cold subtype: still unaffected by the spell
> fire subtype: double normal damage instead of +50%




Okay, my bad.  That's not quite so silly      Obviously, I didn't read the feat quite as well as I thought I had.


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 12, 2004)

*Speaking of Undead*

There's a radio ad running for Disney's southern California theme parks. It features three undead - a ghost, a skeleton, and one unspecified - hitch hiking to said parks, and having no luck. Their goal is either the Haunted Mansion, or the Hollywood Tower of Terror. They can't decide on which, and an argument breaks out on the matter.

Finally the skeleton tells the ghost to, "Drop dead."

To which the ghost replies with, "A little late for that now, don't you think?"


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 12, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Here's my take on critting (or Sneak attacking) the uncrittable.
> 
> I simply don't believe that undead, plants, constructs and elementals are wholly homogenous.
> 
> ...



 The point about why crits don't affect undead is that you can't stab at say, their heart or kidneys or lungs for an especially incapacitating strike.  That is why crits do not affect them.  Being undead, they have no vital organs to strike and since core rules doesn't handle lopping off arms and heads (generally) taht isn't much of a consideration.

 Hagen


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 12, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> The point about why crits don't affect undead is that you can't stab at say, their heart or kidneys or lungs for an especially incapacitating strike.  That is why crits do not affect them.  Being undead, they have no vital organs to strike and since core rules doesn't handle lopping off arms and heads (generally) taht isn't much of a consideration.



But the core rules DO handle those - a crit isn't just loss of an internal organ - it's also loss of the use of a limb, eye etc. It's all abstract, but it's all there.

Unless you bring in creatures which are immune to crits (despite often having places that are critical to their functioning), when it suddenly starts breaking down.

As a concrete example: A vampire can be staked, because it's heart is vulnerable. A vampire cannot live without it's head. Yet it is not possible to critically hit a vampire.

Where's the reasoning here?


----------



## Milkman Dan (Oct 12, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> General Feats
> Vampire Hunter
> 
> Divine Feats
> ...



I'll bite!  I'm curious about those two.  My cleric PC's nemesis is a vampire.  He also has some hunter of the dead levels, so I wonder if Spurn Death's Touch is the same as the 3rd level hunter of the dead class ability.

Oh! And thanks to the person who gave me the sacred purifier prereqs.


----------



## JustKim (Oct 12, 2004)

> A fire elemental comes from the Elemental Plane of Fire, the place described as the source of all fire in the Multiverse. I find it hard to believe that there can be any place hotter than that, yet fire elementals are comfortable living there, which to me implies that they don't continually take damage.



Being in the elemental plane of fire does 3d10 fire damage a round. A fireballing mage does 10d6 fire damage a round, twice as hot as the elemental plane of fire. Immersion in lava does 20d6 fire damage a round- four times as hot as the elemental plane of fire. There are a great many things hotter than the elemental plane of fire.



> As for fuel, here's the quote about the Elemental Plane of Fire from the SRD:
> 
> "Fire survives here without need for fuel or air, but flammables brought onto the plane are consumed readily."



So on the elemental plane of fire, fire elementals don't require fuel. I think you missed my point entirely. It was not about where or in what circumstances fire elementals are in danger of burning out. Now we are simply splitting hairs.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 12, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> But the core rules DO handle those - a crit isn't just loss of an internal organ - it's also loss of the use of a limb, eye etc. It's all abstract, but it's all there.
> 
> Unless you bring in creatures which are immune to crits (despite often having places that are critical to their functioning), when it suddenly starts breaking down.
> 
> ...



 See therein lies the problem. D&D doesn't want to have exact hit capabilities like other systems (Rolemaster is an excellent example). The DM is basically just encouraged to make it interesting rather than having called shots, the lopping off of limbs, etc.

 The vampire example you provide simply backs up my point. Critical hits in D&D are more meant that you manage an especially good shot at a weak point in their defense. This could be just a matter of their arm being raised to expose a loose plate in their armor (Smaug anyone?) or it could mean you drove your dagger thru their chainmail to stab them directly in their kidney. The final description is up to the DM. Vampires hearts are in the same place as normal human hearts and thus they can be easily aimed for.  Part of vampire lore has always been that the heart is the one internal organ they need as it is the source for all the blood. Thusly, stabbing them in the heart will kill them.  Stabbing a vampire in the kidneys won't do any extra damage as they don't exactly need to process anything thru them anymore.

 Use a vorpal sword with an appropriate roll to cut the head off of a vampire. In most games I've played in, if you left that vampire headless he would eventually be back together and he would be coming after you if you hadn't left him tied up for the sun and/or staked him in the heart to boot.

  Hagen


----------



## Felon (Oct 12, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Here's my take on critting (or Sneak attacking) the uncrittable. I simply don't believe that undead, plants, constructs and elementals are wholly homogenous. A lich still has a head, arms and legs. So do most constructs. Either has places that are stronger or weaker than others. Plants still have parts where a large part of the whole can be removed by attacking a weak point. Elementals often have the same.




That's a very old take on critting...one that goes as far back as critting goes, in fact. The general response--official and otherwise--is that your description of attacking vulnerable spots is accounted for in the randomness of the damage roll. After all, nobody's actively trying to score mere flesh wounds. Immunity to crits is a necessary defense in a game where there's supposed to be a paper for every rock. No, rogues shouldn't just waltz through every single fight tumbling to a flank position and doing ridiculous amounts of damage. 

True, the game does allow for magic items to compensate for monster defenses (thus providing a scissor for the paper). That's why I agree that a property that allows for some extra damage to undead is reasonable. But outright allowing critting is not.



			
				Staffan said:
			
		

> Agreed. If something is *immune* to cold, it's immune. If you want something that's colder, make it do more damage - that'll help against creatures with cold resistance, at least.




In a way it's funny that folks would complain about having a feat that allows a spell to bypass cold immunity. It's sort of like we're coming full circle, because folks have long complained on numerous occasions before--both on this board and at my gaming table--that immunity to cold and other elemental damage types is silly, at least in the case of many creatures: 

"What, you pour liquid liquid nitrogen on a zombie or ghoul and it doesn't freeze and shatter? Bull___! It's just dead, putrified flesh!" 

Folks make the same arguement about oozes and such; pretty much anything that obviously has some form of liquid in it should freeze if it gets cold enough. The response, of course, is "Look, it's magically protected, OK?" 

So Piercing Cold makes a spell's effect potent enough to circumvent the magical protection. Whatever.


----------



## Felon (Oct 12, 2004)

OK, sorry to try to get back on topic, I have actual questions about Libris Mortis that I'm hoping someone can answer 

1) Are the avolakia mentioned at all? (asked already, but I think it got overlooked during all the true necromancer hoopla).

2) Looks like the ghost brute and mummy templates from Savage Species were carried over. Are there templates for mohrgs and bodaks provided?


----------



## Samurai (Oct 12, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> OK, sorry to try to get back on topic, I have actual questions about Libris Mortis that I'm hoping someone can answer
> 
> 1) Are the avolakia mentioned at all? (asked already, but I think it got overlooked during all the true necromancer hoopla).
> 
> 2) Looks like the ghost brute and mummy templates from Savage Species were carried over. Are there templates for mohrgs and bodaks provided?



1)  nothing I've seen on avolakia.

2)  Not as templates, but the Mohrg is one of the Monster Classes presented in Savage Species style... a full 20 levels!


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 12, 2004)

Did they ever explain what had to die and what had to happen, for something like a Nightshade to be created?

Is there anything in the book such as something explainingl that if someone dies a certain way, they have a chance of coming back as a particular type of undead?


----------



## Felon (Oct 12, 2004)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Did they ever explain what had to die and what had to happen, for something like a Nightshade to be created? Is there anything in the book such as something explainingl that if someone dies a certain way, they have a chance of coming back as a particular type of undead?




In the majority of cases, an undead monster's original entry explains what the criteria are for becoming that type of undead. Mohrgs, for instance, are "the animated corpses of mass murderers or similar villains who died without atoning for their crimes." Bodaks are "the undead remnants of humanoids who have been destroyed by the touch of absolute evil."

Of course, many undead create their own spawn (e.g. wights, shadows, vamps). Many are also accounted for through the various undead creation spells.

Now, as for nightshades, to my understanding they don't possess either the shell or spirit of a formerly-living creature, but are rather composed of "equal parts darkness and absolute evil", i.e. negative energy. They're the undiluted stuff of undeath made sentient. Some folks have a problem with these "undead that were never alive", but that just seems like getting caught up on semantics IMO (then again, I have to admit I do wince a bit whenever Monte Cook or whoever tries to pawn off a medium-sized giant as a 0HD PC race).

What are you looking for? Like some percentage chance that if a player is destroyed by the touch of absolute evil that he might come back as a bodak? Seems pretty much a plot device for the DM to work out. 

Btw, while we're on the subject, can anyone tell us if Libris Mortis gives us any new nightshades? How about anything on bodaks?


----------



## Felon (Oct 12, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> 1)  nothing I've seen on avolakia.
> 
> 2)  Not as templates, but the Mohrg is one of the Monster Classes presented in Savage Species style... a full 20 levels!




Thanks for the info. It's a bit disappointing that there's no template, as that would make for some killer monster combos. then again, they wouldn't be that hard to make either.

Now a mohrg PC, I have to wonder how well that would work. 6 shaft levels aside, we're talking about a 20-level class that only gets the ability to grab folks and paralyze them. Not much to work with. 

I'd like to hear from anyone who has LM that thinks that ANY of the mosnter classes look actually playable. Just seeking opinions.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 12, 2004)

Heres one!

Does the book talk about why spawning undead don't take over the world? we've had a couple of interesting threads on that topic here at En World and I was wondering if they touched on that at all.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 12, 2004)

Milkman Dan said:
			
		

> I'll bite!  I'm curious about those two.  My cleric PC's nemesis is a vampire.  He also has some hunter of the dead levels, so I wonder if Spurn Death's Touch is the same as the 3rd level hunter of the dead class ability.
> 
> Oh! And thanks to the person who gave me the sacred purifier prereqs.




Milkman Dan, eh?  Red Meat fan?

Vampire Hunter:  Detect vampires, immunity to vampires' dominating gaze.

Spurn Death's Touch:  Spend a turn attempt to heal 1d4 ability damage, paralysis or a negative level caused by undead.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 12, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Heres one!
> 
> Does the book talk about why spawning undead don't take over the world? we've had a couple of interesting threads on that topic here at En World and I was wondering if they touched on that at all.




Not really.  They mention spawning and how it's basically like a plague that must be stopped at the source.  A little later they point out the advantages of creating spawn (i.e. allies under your control) but they never address how the undead don't rule the world.

There's a variant rule, however, that lets an undead decide *not* to spawn by making an Intelligence check (DC 15), even if they would normally automatically create spawn.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 12, 2004)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Did they ever explain what had to die and what had to happen, for something like a Nightshade to be created?
> 
> Is there anything in the book such as something explainingl that if someone dies a certain way, they have a chance of coming back as a particular type of undead?




This is exactly the sort of flavor text I would like to see in a "prestige format" book as Libris Mortis is advertised.

It looks like they bothered to put a chapter on undead physiology (what there is to say about it beside that they're dead so no physiology at all?   ) they could have thought about explaining really what is the in-game reason for the different undead to exist... Obviously the basic ones are already known, but the others need some explanation.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 12, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> This is exactly the sort of flavor text I would like to see in a "prestige format" book as Libris Mortis is advertised.
> 
> It looks like they bothered to put a chapter on undead physiology (what there is to say about it beside that they're dead so no physiology at all?   ) they could have thought about explaining really what is the in-game reason for the different undead to exist... Obviously the basic ones are already known, but the others need some explanation.




I agree that this would have been some good info to put in.  But, alas, it was not meant to be...


----------



## jester47 (Oct 12, 2004)

The umbral creature made it over from Savage Species, but I don't think Wight and Wraith did...

I liked the "more skeleton samples" page.  That was nice.

How do the undead keep from taking over the world?  Easy- Clerics.  Lots and lots of Clerics.  Why do you think its so hard to get one in the party?  Most of them are off fighting hoardes of undead...

Aaron.


----------



## Elocin (Oct 12, 2004)

Could someone tell me how much the Rod of Defiance costs and what it does as I am currently playing a Cleric of Pelor running through the City of the Spider Queen and I think I would LOVE this magic item.

I would greatly appreciate it and tia.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 12, 2004)

Elocin said:
			
		

> Could someone tell me how much the Rod of Defiance costs and what it does as I am currently playing a Cleric of Pelor running through the City of the Spider Queen and I think I would LOVE this magic item.
> 
> I would greatly appreciate it and tia.




A mere 13,000gp.  Only about 35 years' worth of wages for a commoner.


----------



## Elocin (Oct 12, 2004)

I thank you and I forgot to add something else, how much does a Nightstick cost and does it do anything else besides the additional turn/rebuke attempts?

Again, tia.


----------



## JustKim (Oct 12, 2004)

That's all the nightstick does, for 7.5K.


----------



## Elocin (Oct 12, 2004)

JustKim said:
			
		

> That's all the nightstick does, for 7.5K.




Which is priced about right if you do not want to take the feat.  As you can purchase an Ioun Stone and get the alertness feat for I believe it was 8K gp.

Thank you again.


----------



## seankreynolds (Oct 12, 2004)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> You're thinking of mere cold. *Piercing Cold* deals with _COLD_. The kind of cold that can freeze-dry a white dragon. We're talking Kelvin Scale cold. The kind of stuff that, at the lower end, gives us metallic hydrogen and Helium II. Now, true, it's doubtful *Piercing Cold* ever gets that bad, but you can still produce temperatures so low even creatures unaffected by normal cold are harmed. So in that area *Piercing Cold* is not broken.




In D&D, cold is cold ... the variable effects are all in the hp damage dealt, not in the temperature. You don't have creatures with "immunity to cold that's not colder than 9 degrees Centigrade" or "immunity to cold attacks that remove less than 1,000 joules of energy from the target" ... because D&D defines the coldness of its effects in terms of how many hp the attack deals, not how much "cold energy" (an oxmoron in scientific terms) the attack applies to the creature.

Is it reasonable to say that a frost giant should be able to tolerate lower temperatures than an Inuit? Yes. Do we express this in terms of tolerance for joules of energy absorbed by the environment in a certain time period? No, because that is FAR more complex than it needs to be for D&D. D&D is simple with its "energy" resistances (and remember that cold isn't an energy); otherwise you have to express all of its "energy" resistances in scientific terms (acid resistance = able to tolerate pH levels as low as X, electricity resistance = able to tolerate voltages and amperes as high as X, fire resistance = able to tolerate joule-inputs as high as X, cold resistance = able to tolerate joule-extractions as high as X, and so on). Then you have to define all acid, fire, cold, and elec attacks in terms of scientific principles ("this _fireball_ spell deals 1d6x1000 joules of heat to all creatures in the target area"). Do you want to turn D&D into that? It would suck.

Your argument is that it's OK to have cold that's so cold it hurts even cold-subtype monsters with cold immunity. With that, let me give you some examples of how your argument breaks down.
* A spectre. This creature is incorporeal. It has no body. It is immune to environmental cold. A spectre can fly through the cold heart of the darkest space and never take damage from it. By your argument, a cold attack with Piercing Cold should hurt this creature, a creature that can exist in the cold void between stars (scientists estimate space is about 3 degrees Kelvin just because of ambient energy) because Piercing Cold lets you make "absolute zero-temperature" attacks. (Let's ignore that the incorporeal subtype doesn't make you immune to magical cold ... you're the one confusing the issue by bringing up real-world physics in D&D spells so we've already erased the line between "cold from magic" and "cold not from magic."
* Aaz, the Avatar of Absolute Zero. This monster I just made up is a living embodiment of 0 degrees Kelvin, a strange elemental creature that is the coldest state for matter. It is immune to cold and has the cold subtype. By your argument, a cold attack with Piercing Cold should hurt this creature.
* Aazfather, the primordial being that created Aaz. Scientists theorize that there are temperatures colder than "absolute zero;" temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of molecules or atoms, and in theory there may be even colder states where the nuclear vibrations of the protons and neutrons slow down and even colder when the electrons slow down, too. Aazfather embodies this concept. It is immune to cold and has the cold subtype. By your argument, a cold attack with Piercing Cold should hurt this creature.

It also introduces a bad precedent. If you can have cold attacks that harm ultimate-cold creatures, you can have fire attacks that harm fire creatures ("I'm Novablast, god and embodiment of supernovas ... ouch, that's hot!"), acid attacks that harm acid creatures (by definition a powerful acid doesn't attack itself, and there is a limit to how acidic you can make a substance, and your argument implies that a creature of pure acid like an "acid elemental" can take damage from pure acid), and electricity attacks that harm electricity creatures ("I'm a living lightning bolt, I'm just electrons running around in this space, oh no, don't add MORE ELECTRONS TO ME!").



			
				mangamuscle said:
			
		

> I think that was a bad example. Frostburn has a feat that makes cold spells so cold that they can harm even creatures with cold immunity. The inverse I saw once in the anime *Bastard!* where Dark Scneider managed to cast a fire spell so hot it damaged even a fire immune Efreeti. If you going to say "anime is non-cannon" then must have not read what Jeff Grub wrote "The heat here is so intense that even creatures immune to flame like fire elementals take 1d2 points of damage per turn unless protectyed by Kossuth" in 1the st edition Manual of the Planes, page 40.




Yes, because 1E game rules are *so* relevant to a 3E rules discussion. Shall we take a moment to talk about exceptional strength and how 1E females can't get the same high numbers as 1E males?



			
				devilish said:
			
		

> I can see Sean's point -- sneak attack is a core component of the system...
> However, I have experienced this personally and was extremely frustrated.
> Played a WOTC-published module that was loaded with undead, and
> with some of them having damage-reduction, the fighter couldn't get
> ...




I'm guessing you're talking about Underdark, which is very undead-heavy, and that is unfortunate for the nonmagical classes. The DMG cautions against this sort of thing for the reasons you state ... it ruins the fun of some of the characters, just as much as only having opponents immune to magic ruins the fun of spellcasting characters. How would I make it more balanced? Well, I wouldn't make the proportions so overwhelmingly undead with DR. Introduce slaves, guardian monsters, and living allies of the undead creatures so all characters can shine. But that's off-topic for this already off-topic thread. 



			
				jester47 said:
			
		

> After reading your post, oh heck yeah.
> I totally missed considering these factors...




I have trained my robot brain to consider many factors. It is What I Do. It's what makes me a ruthless critic of sloppy game design, and probably contributes to my insomnia because I overthink everything. 

Anyway, I'm glad I turned you around on this one. Phew!

{This does make me ask the question:  Is it wise to have a property that is essentially is the combination of two properties?}

As long as the individual properties add up to the same as the combo property, it's fine. After all, _flaming burst_ (+2) is just _flaming_ with a never-defined _burst_ property added, each worth +1.



			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> Or, they could create a spell to drown water elementals, if they wanted.  Doesn't mean it isn't absurd.




Exactly.


----------



## Felon (Oct 12, 2004)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> Is it reasonable to say that a frost giant should be able to tolerate lower temperatures than an Inuit? Yes. Do we express this in terms of tolerance for joules of energy absorbed by the environment in a certain time period? No, because that is FAR more complex than it needs to be for D&D. D&D is simple with its "energy" resistances (and remember that cold isn't an energy); otherwise you have to express all of its "energy" resistances in scientific terms (acid resistance = able to tolerate pH levels as low as X, electricity resistance = able to tolerate voltages and amperes as high as X, fire resistance = able to tolerate joule-inputs as high as X, cold resistance = able to tolerate joule-extractions as high as X, and so on). Then you have to define all acid, fire, cold, and elec attacks in terms of scientific principles ("this _fireball_ spell deals 1d6x1000 joules of heat to all creatures in the target area"). Do you want to turn D&D into that? It would suck.




OK, we get it already. You don't like that he used science to explain a D&D mechanic.   



> It also introduces a bad precedent. If you can have cold attacks that harm ultimate-cold creatures, you can have fire attacks that harm fire creatures ("I'm Novablast, god and embodiment of supernovas ... ouch, that's hot!"), acid attacks that harm acid creatures (by definition a powerful acid doesn't attack itself, and there is a limit to how acidic you can make a substance, and your argument implies that a creature of pure acid like an "acid elemental" can take damage from pure acid), and electricity attacks that harm electricity creatures ("I'm a living lightning bolt, I'm just electrons running around in this space, oh no, don't add MORE ELECTRONS TO ME!").




Lol! Well, just be sure to note that the Piercing Cold feat does *not* allow cold-based damage to affect creatures with the cold subtype. No freezing ice paraelementals to death. It does allow a spell to freeze a zombie until it shatters, which makes about as much sense as the blanket cold immunity handed out to undead, when many undead aren't much more than ordinary flesh and/or bone (which was sloppy game design in the first place).


----------



## Felon (Oct 12, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> This is exactly the sort of flavor text I would like to see in a "prestige format" book as Libris Mortis is advertised. It looks like they bothered to put a chapter on undead physiology (what there is to say about it beside that they're dead so no physiology at all?   ) they could have thought about explaining really what is the in-game reason for the different undead to exist... Obviously the basic ones are already known, but the others need some explanation.




Hmm. As a DM, this is the exact sort of stuff I *don't* want to see in a book like Libris Mortis. Why would I want someone to tell my why different undead exist in *my* woirld?


----------



## seankreynolds (Oct 12, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Lol! Well, just be sure to note that the Piercing Cold feat does *not* allow cold-based damage to affect creatures with the cold subtype. No freezing ice paraelementals to death. It does allow a spell to freeze a zombie until it shatters




Well, zombies aren't immune to cold in 3E but I assume you mean skeletons (which are immune to cold).

But anyway, that's a problem with how the "immunity to cold" SQ is applied to many creatures, not a problem with cold damage in itself (energy immunities are still handed out like candy to many creatures, particularly those converted from earlier editions, much as darkvision was in 3.0 D&D). In most cases I actually don't like blanket immunity because of problems that you suggest; it's better to give something cold resistance 30 (or even 60) then true immunity. If designers did that, there'd be no need for things like Piercing Cold; you could Empower or Maximize a cone of cold enough to chill even a frost giant, though you'd still be better off using a fire spell (7th- or 8th-level equiv cone of cold vs. 3rd level fireball, it's all a matter of resources).


----------



## aurance (Oct 13, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Hmm. As a DM, this is the exact sort of stuff I *don't* want to see in a book like Libris Mortis. Why would I want someone to tell my why different undead exist in *my* woirld?




Because there's some commonality of undead across most campaigns, far more than differences. In most campaigns, vampires come from another vampire's bite, and skeletons are raised by spells. Even though in some campaigns vampires and skeletons may fall from the sky, it would still be helpful to describe in general terms how a certain undead creature type comes about.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 13, 2004)

Da-da-dum. Orcus.   


*this bump/Orcus drive by brought to you by the truest Orcus nut in existance, Nightfall*


----------



## PeterDonis (Oct 13, 2004)

***Off Topic** science question*



			
				seankreynolds said:
			
		

> Scientists theorize that there are temperatures colder than "absolute zero;" temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of molecules or atoms, and in theory there may be even colder states where the nuclear vibrations of the protons and neutrons slow down and even colder when the electrons slow down, too.




Off topic, but do you have a reference for this? At true absolute zero, it isn't just the motions of atoms and molecules that are "frozen" (within the limits of the uncertainty principle)--the motions of *all* particles, including nuclei, protons, and electrons, are "frozen" too. The recent breakthroughs on creating super-cold states like the Bose-Einstein condensate are examples of such states, but their temperatures are still above absolute zero (even if only by a zillionth of a degree). There are negative temperatures in physics, but they aren't colder than absolute zero; they're hotter than positive infinity.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 13, 2004)

I'm guessing that means someone already figured out my mildly-considered theory that if you heat something up to a certain degree that 'heat' loses its meaning?  (Two atoms so excited that they're light years away from each other and such)

That would be -such- an ego boost if so, since I only got a B in physics (damned vectors).

But yeah, absolute zero is -absolute- zero.  In theory, it could also means a stop in time, since velocity and time are generally beleived to be connected.

(again, B in Phys, heh).


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2004)

Book of Eldritch Might
Ember Mage: Eyes of Fire Ability:  "This fire is so hot that even creatures immune to fire suffer half damage..."

I thought that was a really bad idea then and still think so now.  Though I won't claim to have thought about it in nearly that detail, my opinion was for basically the reasons Sean listed.

BoEM is still a great book, but that one thing was like a big "This way lies madness" sign.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that means someone already figured out my mildly-considered theory that if you heat something up to a certain degree that 'heat' loses its meaning?  (Two atoms so excited that they're light years away from each other and such)




If a single atom is moving at all, it has heat.  Other particles are only involved if you want to transfer that heat.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 13, 2004)

Don't suppose we can move back to important issues...like why should undead pay homage to these other losers and not the real deal, Orcus.  


Well just thought I'd try that one...


----------



## seankreynolds (Oct 13, 2004)

PeterDonis said:
			
		

> Off topic, but do you have a reference for this? At true absolute zero, it isn't just the motions of atoms and molecules that are "frozen" (within the limits of the uncertainty principle)--the motions of *all* particles, including nuclei, protons, and electrons, are "frozen" too. The recent breakthroughs on creating super-cold states like the Bose-Einstein condensate are examples of such states, but their temperatures are still above absolute zero (even if only by a zillionth of a degree). There are negative temperatures in physics, but they aren't colder than absolute zero; they're hotter than positive infinity.




Well one, I have a degree in chemistry, so I've read about this and specifically asked my professors about it.

Two, here's a quote from Ask Science Theatre: "Temperature is a physical quantity which gives us an idea of how hot or cold an object is. The temperature of an object depends on how fast the atoms andmolecules which make up the object can shake, or oscillate. As an object is cooled, the oscillations of its atoms and molecules slow down. For example, as water cools, the slowing oscillations of the molecules allow the water to freeze into ice. In all materials, a point is eventually reached at which all oscillations are the slowest they can possibly be. The temperature which corresponds to this point is called absolute zero. Note that the oscillations never come to a complete stop, even at absolute zero."

Three, from Wikipedia.com encyclopedia: "For the case of free atoms at temperatures approaching absolute zero, most of the energy is in the form of translational motion and the temperature can be measured in terms of the speed of this motion, with slower speeds corresponding to lower temperatures. In fact because of quantum mechanical effects, the speed at absolute zero is not precisely zero, but depends, as does the energy, on the size of space within which the atom is confined. At absolute zero the molecules and atoms in a system are all in the ground state (i.e. the lowest possible energy state) and the system has the least possible amount of kinetic energy allowed by the laws of physics. This minimum energy corresponds to the zero-point energy encountered in the quantum mechanical particle in a box problem. As mentioned above, the lowest possible energy is not necessarily zero energy, due to the ramifications of quantum theory." (Later in this cite it talks about BEC being near-AZ, the negative temperature/hotter than infinity bit).

The above doesn't mention the movement of quarks and electrons (other than electrons being in their lowest ground state) ... so those subatomic particles are still moving in some way (for example, even in their lowest energy state, electrons are still moving at the speed of light), thus, energy. Theoretically, you could extract that energy (though in the real world we don't know how to do that) and thus make that material "colder," even if it's at absolute zero, but not in a sense meaningful to the use of the word "temperature."


----------



## Wycen (Oct 13, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Don't suppose we can move back to important issues...like why should undead pay homage to these other losers and not the real deal, Orcus.
> 
> 
> Well just thought I'd try that one...




I want to hear more about _Evening Glory  _


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 13, 2004)

Wycen said:
			
		

> I want to hear more about _Evening Glory  _




Evening Glory is a pretty interesting deity.  She's the deity of eternal love, basically, believing that "desire and the desire for the love of another should never fall throug the depredations of age."  She's the patron of those who seek undeath to keep love eternal, those whose love transcends life itself.

Most of her worshippers are undead or become undead soon after taking up worship of her.


----------



## mythusmage (Oct 13, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> Evening Glory is a pretty interesting deity.  She's the deity of eternal love, basically, believing that "desire and the desire for the love of another should never fall throug the depredations of age."  She's the patron of those who seek undeath to keep love eternal, those whose love transcends life itself.
> 
> Most of her worshippers are undead or become undead soon after taking up worship of her.




So in effect they're pledging their undying love.


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 13, 2004)

*Meh.*

Guess I'm a dissenter, here, and not one of the "rah rah LM is so great" people. 'Cause it's not.

This book fits the "mediocre" label, for me. It isn't even close to Draconomicon, and (IMO) if this is the way the monster books are going to go after Draconomicon, then the future doesn't bode well for the Aberrations book.

A few spotty mechanics (as discussed earlier in this thread) and a lack of decent information re: undead and their consequences that has been often brought up in discussions (at ENWorld at least) drags this book down. I was especially disappointed that I didn't find any discussion as to why animating mindless undead (e.g. zombies and skeletons) is considered an "evil" spell with the [Evil] descriptor. What's the difference between that and constructs? The negative energy? If so, then _why_, for pete's sake? _Tell me_.

And the "Necropolitan" is the dumbest ass monster I've seen in a long time. What's next? The Necrosexual? "Necrophilia in the City"? Whatever.

I'll get some use out of this book, to be sure - but it's no Draconomicon. Not even close.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 13, 2004)

Anyone know the size of these critters:
Angel of Decay
Atropal Scion
Blaspheme
Bleakborn
Blood Amniote
Blood Mote Cloud
Bone Rat Swarm
Boneyard
Brain in a Jar
Carcass Eater
Cinderspawn
Corpse Rat Swarm
Crypt Chanter
Deathlock
Dessicator
Dire Maggot
Dream Vestige
Entomber
Entropic Reaver
Evolved Undead
Forsaken Shell
Grave Dirt Golem
Hulking Corpse
Murk
Necromental
Necropolitan
Plague Blight
Quell
Raiment
Skin Kite
Skirr
Skulking Cyst
Slaughter Wight
Slaymate
Spectral Lyrist
Swarm-Shifter
Tomb Mote
Visage
Voidwraith
Wheep


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 13, 2004)

BryonD said:
			
		

> If a single atom is moving at all, it has heat.  Other particles are only involved if you want to transfer that heat.




Ah.  Good point.  Drat.


----------



## Zoatebix (Oct 13, 2004)

*Very very very Off Topic*



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> And then, you can crank up the temperature even higher, and get nucleus to break as well, and finally to dissolve everything into quarks.




... _and_ Gluons.  Yay Quark-Gluon plasma!  Does anyone have a link to any news from the RIHCS (I think that's the acronymns) particle accelerator?  I think they were planning to mash gold nuclei into each other at relativistic velocities to study quark-gluon plasma, but I never heard about the results of the experiements...

I'm banking on there being physics students or professionals reading this thread so I don't have to mess around with google trying to find an answer...
-George


----------



## Henry (Oct 13, 2004)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Does anyone have a link to any news from the RIHCS (I think that's the acronymns) particle accelerator?  I think they were planning to mash gold nuclei into each other at relativistic velocities to study quark-gluon plasma, but I never heard about the results of the experiements...




Yeah, in fact I heard they were trying it right nowFFFFFZZZAPPPPP!

(universe dissolves into sub-atomic particles...)



Actually, all the articles I can find are dated from experiments carried out in the first half of 2003.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 13, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Anyone know the size of these critters:
> Angel of Decay  L
> Atropal Scion  M
> Blaspheme  M
> ...



See above, T = tiny, S = small, etc.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 13, 2004)

And my new best friend is Samurai!

Thanks!


----------



## PeterDonis (Oct 14, 2004)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> <snipped references>
> 
> The above doesn't mention the movement of quarks and electrons (other than electrons being in their lowest ground state) ... so those subatomic particles are still moving in some way (for example, even in their lowest energy state, electrons are still moving at the speed of light), thus, energy. Theoretically, you could extract that energy (though in the real world we don't know how to do that) and thus make that material "colder," even if it's at absolute zero, but not in a sense meaningful to the use of the word "temperature."




OK, now I see where you were coming from. My degree is in Nuclear Engineering, so I spent a lot more time looking at subatomic particles than at whole atoms and molecules; that's probably why I came at this from a different slant. Here's how I would interpret the references you cited:

The references didn't mention the motions of subatomic particles because in almost all real-world cases they're not relevant--since, as you point out, we don't know any way of extracting whatever "extra" energy is still in them. However, if there is any way of extracting such energy from *any* particles in the system, whether it's nucleons in the nucleus or electrons orbiting the nucleus (I don't think they're moving at the speed of light in their lowest energy state to begin with--photons, yes, electrons no--but in any case if they're in their lowest energy state within the atom then by definition you can't extract any more energy from them), then the system isn't truly at absolute zero. The definition of absolute zero is that *no* further energy can be extracted at all, from any part of the system, by any process whatever.

If we don't yet know of a process to extract more energy from some system, we may *think* it's at absolute zero; but if we discover such a process in the future, that doesn't show that we can now cool something below absolute zero; it just shows we were wrong in thinking the system was at absolute zero before.

Edit: The following article in the Usenet Physics FAQ goes into more detail about the viewpoint I'm taking here; it gives a more general definition of temperature than "average kinetic energy of particles", which is the one you used, and explains how negative temperatures work.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/neg_temperature.html

P. S.: Saw the press release for your new gaming company. Good luck! I look forward to taking a look at your products; if they're anything like the stuff already on your website I'll probably be a customer.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 14, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> I was especially disappointed that I didn't find any discussion as to why animating mindless undead (e.g. zombies and skeletons) is considered an "evil" spell with the [Evil] descriptor. What's the difference between that and constructs? The negative energy? If so, then _why_, for pete's sake? _Tell me_.



 In my opinion, casting a negative energy spell would be similar to sticking a needle into someone's skin and flesh. For spells like harm and the inflict, the needle goes in, and is removed again. Animating undead, the needle not only remains, but is hard to remove (and possibly infected). Effectively, you're creating a semi-permanent font of negative energy, antithesis to life, allowing it to seep into a plane filled with life, slowly eroding the natural order.
 It's not the negative energy/needle alone. Placement and duration may augment or reduce the damage done.
 Doesn't work for everyone, but it works for me.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 14, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> I was especially disappointed that I didn't find any discussion as to why animating mindless undead (e.g. zombies and skeletons) is considered an "evil" spell with the [Evil] descriptor. What's the difference between that and constructs? The negative energy? If so, then _why_, for pete's sake? _Tell me_.



Simple. They screwed up.  



			
				arnwyn said:
			
		

> And the "Necropolitan" is the dumbest ass monster I've seen in a long time. What's next? The Necrosexual? "Necrophilia in the City"? Whatever.



Hey now! Necrophilia is a very common practice! At least in Glivid Autel.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 14, 2004)

NPF! = No post Fool!


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Oct 14, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> ooo, just remembered the quesiton I popped in here to ask in the first place: is there any mention of the avolakia, the race of necromantic aberrations that use the undead as both thralls and livestock?




The avolakia appears in Monster Manual II.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Felon (Oct 14, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> I was especially disappointed that I didn't find any discussion as to why animating mindless undead (e.g. zombies and skeletons) is considered an "evil" spell with the [Evil] descriptor. What's the difference between that and constructs? The negative energy? If so, then _why_, for pete's sake? _Tell me_.




Because it takes a sick mind to violate people's corpses. Because all the nice deities say don't do it. Because it's just plain wrong. 

Quick question: is necrophilia any worse than using a blow-up doll (a primitive construct of sorts)? Sorry, even in our age of moral relativism, the answer is yes.  :\ 



> And the "Necropolitan" is the dumbest ass monster I've seen in a long time.




Well, have you checked out "The Slayer's Guide to Ass Monsters"? There are some pretty dumb ones in there. And how about Mongoose's "The Quintessential Ass Monster"? That one even has a template that you can apply to other another creature to make it a half-assed monster.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> The avolakia appears in Monster Manual II.
> Cheers, Al'Kelhar




I'm aware, thanks. I just keep hoping these extremely interesting monsters will get a 3.5 revision to actually make them worth a CR 10, or for that matter just so they can do what the descriptive text says they can do.


----------



## Felonius (Oct 14, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> I was especially disappointed that I didn't find any discussion as to why animating mindless undead (e.g. zombies and skeletons) is considered an "evil" spell with the [Evil] descriptor. What's the difference between that and constructs? The negative energy? If so, then _why_, for pete's sake? _Tell me_.



My explanation: 
"Animate Dead, including similar spells and undead creation methods bind the dead creatures soul back to the corpse and use it to create a channel for the negative energies. The soul of the creature is prevented from seeking afterlife, remains partially conscious and is in constant pain due to the negative energies."

This means that inside the rotting being of every zombie or skeleton there is a soul writhing in agony, screaming in horror... for ever.

Until the undead is destroyed that is. 

- F


----------



## Felon (Oct 14, 2004)

"Felonius"? Man, get outta here!


----------



## Cold0 (Oct 14, 2004)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> PrC List:
> 
> Death's Chosen - mortal pledged to an undead creature
> Dirgesinger - a bard with necromantic abilities
> ...




Could someone give me more details about these PrC classes?
I don't want that someone violate the WOTC copyrights, just some more infos (something about the power ect.)..

Thanks anyways!


----------



## Felonius (Oct 14, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> "Felonius"? Man, get outta here!



Sorry.   I didn't about you when I chose my handle...

- F

PS: Felonius was a name of my longest lived D&D character. I stole it from the Finnish edition of OD&D red box (I was 12 at the time). If I remember correctly, it was in the magic-user example of level titles. Instead of "I'm Felonius, a 2nd level magic-user", you should say "I'm Felonius, an illusionist" or some such.


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 14, 2004)

Felonius said:
			
		

> My explanation:
> "Animate Dead, including similar spells and undead creation methods bind the dead creatures soul back to the corpse and use it to create a channel for the negative energies. The soul of the creature is prevented from seeking afterlife, remains partially conscious and is in constant pain due to the negative energies."



Actually, that's pretty much exactly my explanation as well. (Good stuff!) However, I was pretty disappointed that the so-called "Book of Undead" didn't even _bother_ to try to explain it...


			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Well, have you checked out "The Slayer's Guide to Ass Monsters"? There are some pretty dumb ones in there. And how about Mongoose's "The Quintessential Ass Monster"? That one even has a template that you can apply to other another creature to make it a half-assed monster.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 14, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> It isn't even close to Draconomicon, and (IMO) if this is the way the monster books are going to go after Draconomicon, then the future doesn't bode well for the Aberrations book.




I think it is a good book.

But I agree that it is not as good as Draconomicon.  Then again, I don't think that is a fair standard and I'm not certain I would say that any other WotC book is fully as good as Draconomicon.

Also, Dragons are ultimately a more narrow topic than undead, so I think that had bearing on this.  This is also true for Aberrations and other creature types.  So your boding is probably accurate.  Though again, I don't see that as nearly as bad a thing as you seem to.

If WotC keeps producing books at the quality of Libris Mortis, then I will keep buying.  If WotC produces a single book at the Draconomicon level in the next two years my joy will be surpassed only by my surprise.

IMO Draconomicon was an outstanding book that greatly exceeded expectaions.  It isn't a good plan to make that your new standard because it just is not going to happen.

We have been getting a steady diet of pretty stones.  Some look better than other and some have more flaws than others.  Suddenly we get this brilliant diamond.  I choose to be glad for the bonus.  If someone is going to take the event of the diamond to no longer be satisfied with any future pretty stones, then I'd think they would be better off over all if they had never received the diamond.

LM is a pretty good book with some flaws.  I'll keep it.


----------



## Felon (Oct 14, 2004)

BryonD said:
			
		

> IMO Draconomicon was an outstanding book that greatly exceeded expectaions.  It isn't a good plan to make that your new standard because it just is not going to happen.




Yes, Dragonomicon was extremely impressive. That was a big, beautiful book. Libris Mortis isn't quite in that league, and if makes some rather obvious blunders--lots of space wasted on unplayable monster classes for one thing, when what really needed to be presented were templates for bodaks, mohrgs, and other undead that haven't had templates yet--but there are more hits than misses.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 15, 2004)

So it's not perfect. So what? It still has Orcus mentioned in it! That alone makes it a 3.


----------



## Garnfellow (Oct 15, 2004)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Could someone please provide some details on the gravetouched ghoul?




BUMP?


----------



## BryonD (Oct 15, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Yes, Dragonomicon was extremely impressive. That was a big, beautiful book. Libris Mortis isn't quite in that league, and if makes some rather obvious blunders--lots of space wasted on unplayable monster classes for one thing, when what really needed to be presented were templates for bodaks, mohrgs, and other undead that haven't had templates yet--but there are more hits than misses.




Yeah, I will agree with that.
I also wish it had been a little less monster manual-ish, and more on the exploring the undead we know and loath.
But all-in-all it is good enough.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 15, 2004)

Gravetouched ghoul is pretty much just a template for making a ghoul version of most anything.

It becomes an undead with a disease bite and paralysis touch and bite.
Gain a little natural armor and ability bumps.
Keep all its original abilities.

CR+1


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 15, 2004)

to interject (and I think it was mentioned before), in Miniatures Handbook, the Skullclan Hunter gets a power termed "Divine Strike".
"Due to his specialize skill training and connection with the forces of light, a skullclan hunter of 2nd level or higher can make a special attack that is infused with positive energy. Effectively, this ability allows him to deal extra damage to undead as though making a sneak attack. Divine strike damage applies to any sneak attack dice the skullclan hunter has, as well as those gained through advancement in this class."

What do people think of that?


----------



## teitan (Oct 15, 2004)

hrm


----------



## teitan (Oct 15, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> I agree that this would have been some good info to put in.  But, alas, it was not meant to be...



 I thought it was explained rather nicely in the first few pages, what exactly powers the undead that is and how the negative energy plane interacts with the undead and the relationships with different types. Now, an explanation of a Nightshade and what makes them undead, well, I haven't seen that "yet". Prolly not there but the book is damn good. I put it up there in usefulness with BoVD which I LOOOOOOVE as a DM.

Jason


----------



## teitan (Oct 15, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Da-da-dum. Orcus.
> 
> 
> *this bump/Orcus drive by brought to you by the truest Orcus nut in existance, Nightfall*




Do you have the Book of Vile Darkness or Ghostwalk? That is about it. IT is a write up in the COmplete Divine style.


----------



## teitan (Oct 15, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> I was especially disappointed that I didn't find any discussion as to why animating mindless undead (e.g. zombies and skeletons) is considered an "evil" spell with the [Evil] descriptor. What's the difference between that and constructs? The negative energy? If so, then _why_, for pete's sake? _Tell me_.




The corruption of the body is what makes it evil. If you want to get bold faced about it though, the myths and legends that D&D is based on are what the basis of the "evil zombie/skeleton/whatever" concept comes from. In traditional western spiritual teachings the physical body is as sacred as the spiritual body. The spirit that once inhabited the body can not rest until the body has been put to rest/burnt etc. because of its ties to its body. When the body is disturbed/incomplete etc. the spirit is disturbed. 

Jason


----------



## Milkman Dan (Oct 15, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> Milkman Dan, eh?  Red Meat fan?
> 
> Vampire Hunter:  Detect vampires, immunity to vampires' dominating gaze.
> 
> Spurn Death's Touch:  Spend a turn attempt to heal 1d4 ability damage, paralysis or a negative level caused by undead.



Indeed I am!

Thanks for the info.  These two sound like really good picks.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 15, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> to interject (and I think it was mentioned before), in Miniatures Handbook, the Skullclan Hunter gets a power termed "Divine Strike".
> "Due to his specialize skill training and connection with the forces of light, a skullclan hunter of 2nd level or higher can make a special attack that is infused with positive energy. Effectively, this ability allows him to deal extra damage to undead as though making a sneak attack. Divine strike damage applies to any sneak attack dice the skullclan hunter has, as well as those gained through advancement in this class."
> 
> What do people think of that?




I think it's a wonderful, beautiful thing.  It pays for itself by not advancing uncanny dodge, by making you blow a level into cleric and a cross-class skill, and your skill points aren't as good as a normal rogue's.  However, you get to smack undead around, and it has a nice progression of abilities.  It also lends itself well to an epic progression, since I can easily think of several epic feats for it (one to make your weapon undeadbane, one to make it disrupting, one to make it a sunblade, etc.).

Brad


----------



## Klaus (Oct 15, 2004)

What the heck is a Quell? It looks like a Githyanki lich (and we all know that [Gandalf voice] there is only one Githyanki lich, and she does not share power![/Gandalf voice])


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 15, 2004)

Milkman Dan said:
			
		

> Indeed I am!
> 
> Thanks for the info.  These two sound like really good picks.




I was going to start off with "I hate you Milkman Dan," but I figured in the off chance that you weren't a Red Meat-head, that would come across the wrong way.    

Yes, they are good picks, definitely.

I particularly like the "tomb-tainted" feat chain myself.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 15, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> What the heck is a Quell? It looks like a Githyanki lich (and we all know that [Gandalf voice] there is only one Githyanki lich, and she does not share power![/Gandalf voice])




Quells are:
"incorporeal creatures of malevolence and hte night.  They despise all living things, as well sa the light that nurtures them, but the urge that truly drives them is the hatred of those who serve deities."

They can "turn" divine spellcasters as if clerics up to their HD level (5 for the quell listed in the book; advancement is up to 10HD).  The result is the highest level divine spellcaster the quell can cut off from their deity.  The turning damage is the max number of HD of divine spellcasters within 60 ft that can be effected.

Normally, those spellcasters affected can't turn undead or cast divine spells for 1 minute, but if the quell has twice as many HD as the spellcaster has divine levels, the spellcaster looses that ability for 24 hours.    They can do this a number of times/day equal to 3 + Cha bonus.

Pretty powerful ability, sure, but if the quell attacks the caster or the spellcaster receives an atonement spell, the intercession ends (and they get their gods-granted superpowers back).


----------



## Gez (Oct 15, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> [Quell] can "turn" divine spellcasters...




Damn you, Nightchilde, now I need that book! The irony of this monster is too great!


----------



## Voadam (Oct 15, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> when what really needed to be presented were templates for bodaks, mohrgs, and other undead that haven't had templates yet.




There is a mohrg template in the Book of Templates deluxe eidtion.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 15, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Damn you, Nightchilde, now I need that book! The irony of this monster is too great!




And it's only CR 3.    

LM has some great undead beasties in it.  I also like some of the variants it gives (such as the good lich or the fast zombie or the burning skeleton)..not full-blown templates, but variants complete with how that variant affects CR.

Yeah, it's got some flaws (Revived Fossil CRs, I'm looking at you specifically), but like someone else said, the good far outweighs the bad.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 15, 2004)

So what can you tell me about the Skyrr (the weird bull-skull-headed mummy thing) and the Bleakborn?


----------



## Aaron L (Oct 15, 2004)

According to Complete Divine, undead have the soul of the original person bound whithin them.  That's why it's evil.


Guess I can live with it, and why its far easier to animate a zombie than create  a golem.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 15, 2004)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> According to Complete Divine, undead have the soul of the original person bound whithin them.  That's why it's evil.
> 
> 
> Guess I can live with it, and why its far easier to animate a zombie than create  a golem.




Well that's a poor rationale for the standard D&D cosmology where the soul turns into an outsider after enough time on the outer planes.

So the easiest way to defeat a Balor is to find the corpse of his former body and animate it. No save.


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 15, 2004)

(I still say that stain of blood is a horse.)


			
				seankreynolds said:
			
		

> Your argument is that it's OK to have cold that's so cold it hurts even cold-subtype monsters with cold immunity. With that, let me give you some examples of how your argument breaks down.



I think the important reason to be against piercing cold is it leads to someone creating monsters with Piercing Cold Immunity. This in turn leads to the Greater Piercing Cold weapon ability, monsters with Greater Piercing Cold Immunity, the Even Greater Piercing Cold weapon ability and so on and so on. Better to disallow the Piercing Cold ability and nip this trail of useless weapon and monster abilities in the bud.


----------



## green slime (Oct 15, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Well that's a poor rationale for the standard D&D cosmology where the soul turns into an outsider after enough time on the outer planes.
> 
> So the easiest way to defeat a Balor is to find the corpse of his former body and animate it. No save.




Maybe the soul doesn't turn into a petitioner until the corpse has rotted? maybe this is why certain cultures burn their dead, to speed their soul's arrival into the afterlife?

You can't animate what isn't.


----------



## Psion (Oct 15, 2004)

Well Amazon finally got it in... sans discount.

My BAMM card ran out and I wasn't going to renew it... but it's an agressive 37% off with club membership. Not going with Amazon would pay for the membership.

But again, I am stuck with the problem of not having anything to order with it to get me over the "free shipping fence."


----------



## JustKim (Oct 15, 2004)

It takes a long, long time for a corpse on the prime material to become a balor on the planes. I don't remember the figures offhand for every transformation period but it's at least several thousand years.

But I agree the explanation that animating dead is evil because you somehow trap the soul of the creature is pretty poor. If you look at past material this is obviously not true, and it also means WotC is deciding to go back on their "negative energy is evil" policy. The anathema of all life is just misunderstood!


----------



## demiurge1138 (Oct 15, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> And the "Necropolitan" is the dumbest ass monster I've seen in a long time.




Have you read the book _The Scar_? In it, it mentions High Cromlech, the Silent City. The upper class, in order to avoid death, animate themselves as "thantir". The only way to hold property is to be dead. Normal humans are the downtrodden lower class, living in slums and hoping to scrouge enough money to transcend their status and become undead.

And that's why necropolitians rock. The monster itself isn't so exciting; it's the application.

Alright, skirrs and bleakborn... Bleakborn are the flash-frozen corpses of the lost city of Moil. They drain heat from their foes, and even absorb fire attacks. Skirrs are undead desert predators who swoop down on lone travelers, carry them into the air, then drop them. Their origin is unexplained, although I personally would call them the animated remains of ritually constructed composite mummies. Except that they're Huge...

Demiurge out.


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 15, 2004)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> And that's why necropolitians rock. The monster itself isn't so exciting; it's the application.



:\ Ummm... I guess the novelty is just lost on me.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 15, 2004)

And what's a Slaughter Wight and how is it different from a Wight?


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Oct 15, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> And what's a Slaughter Wight and how is it different from a Wight?




Basically, they're meaner, stronger (CR 8) wights,specially touched by dark gods.  They're also encountered more in cities than in barrows.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 15, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> So what can you tell me about the Skyrr (the weird bull-skull-headed mummy thing) and the Bleakborn?



The Skirr looks very cool, but just what it is is not really explained.  It just says it is a predatory undead that enjoys aerial tactics.  Since it doesn't seem to resemble any living creature, and the picture seems to suggest to me that it is constructed from the corpses of several bound together, here is what I'd say:

Skirrs are somewhat of a cross between a construct and an undead.  A necromancer must gather the head of a Dire Bull, the wings of a dragon, and the body of a sphinx.  Then, the pieces are assembled, bound in mummified wrappings, and finally animated as a Skirr.  


Bleakborn are humanoids that died by freezing to death.  They hunger for, and drain, warmth from living things.  They radiate intense cold, and are actually healed by fire and other heat sources (a nasty surprise for a wizard who thinks "cold creature = hit it with fire".)  Any killed by their heat-drain becomes another Bleakborn, and anyone killed by a Bleakborn in another way (its slam attack, for instance) becomes a normal zombie.  Pretty cool creature, if you'll pardon the pun .




> And what's a Slaughter Wight and how is it different from a Wight?



 They are simply a tougher form of Wight, "touched by the power of dark gods", the book says.  They spawn normal wights from the bodies of those they kill, and are sort of a "Wight King".  At 18 hd, with Energy Draining and specially augmented critical hits, they are tough customers...


----------



## Klaus (Oct 15, 2004)

Thanks, y'all! That's all I needed.

>


----------



## seankreynolds (Oct 16, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> (I still say that stain of blood is a horse.)
> I think the important reason to be against piercing cold is it leads to someone creating monsters with Piercing Cold Immunity. This in turn leads to the Greater Piercing Cold weapon ability, monsters with Greater Piercing Cold Immunity, the Even Greater Piercing Cold weapon ability and so on and so on. Better to disallow the Piercing Cold ability and nip this trail of useless weapon and monster abilities in the bud.




JM, that's perfect reasoning, and I'm smacking myself on the forehead for not thinking of it.

(I argued against a similar chain of feats on my boards once ... someone suggested a fighter feat that let you take an AOO against unarmed strikes even if the opponent was a monk or had Improved Unarmed strike, and I said that would mean the monk would get Super-Duper Unarmed Strike to counter the proposed feat, and the fighter would take Ultra Unarmed AOO Smackdown, and the monk would take Mega Double Dragon Unarmed Strike, etc. to infinity).


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 16, 2004)

teitan said:
			
		

> Do you have the Book of Vile Darkness or Ghostwalk? That is about it. IT is a write up in the COmplete Divine style.



Better than nothing.


----------



## Felon (Oct 16, 2004)

Actually, looking at the BoVD entry on Orcus, I can see that his entry in LM is pretty much a work of copy-and-paste from the former to the latter.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 16, 2004)

Damn.

I was hoping for a different entry. (Didn't much care for Monte's write up.) 
Does it mention Kiaranselee at all? I mean in terms of Orcus wanting to crush the life from her shell of body...?


----------



## BelXiror (Oct 16, 2004)

Actually, something DOES happen to the soul when someone's turned undead.

Look through Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection.

Raise Dead - *A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell.* 

Resurrection and True Resurrection - *You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed* 

So while someones undead, they can't be raised OR resurrected. This implies, to me, that the soul is busy, specially since True Res doesn't even need the body to bring someone back.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 16, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> (I still say that stain of blood is a horse.)
> I think the important reason to be against piercing cold is it leads to someone creating monsters with Piercing Cold Immunity. This in turn leads to the Greater Piercing Cold weapon ability, monsters with Greater Piercing Cold Immunity, the Even Greater Piercing Cold weapon ability and so on and so on. Better to disallow the Piercing Cold ability and nip this trail of useless weapon and monster abilities in the bud.




The problem with that being (as I posted earlier) that Piercing Cold doesn't affect Cold Subtype monsters. So there's no reason to make Even Greater Immunity to beat Piercing Cold, as Cold Subtype already trumps it.


----------



## Felon (Oct 16, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Damn. I was hoping for a different entry. (Didn't much care for Monte's write up.) Does it mention Kiaranselee at all? I mean in terms of Orcus wanting to crush the life from her shell of body...?




No, it's just reprinted material, largely word-for-word...and truncated, of course because the entry is smaller.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 16, 2004)

Sean, I know how you feel about critical hits and undead. I am trying to figure out a mechanic for beheading vampires and came up with one loosely based on the Buffy RPG. If the critical hit's multiplied damage is enough to reduce the vampire to 0 hp, it suffers the full critical hit's damage and its head is severed. If not, then it suffers only the normal (non-critical) damage for the attack. How does that sound?


----------



## seankreynolds (Oct 16, 2004)

That's interesting. It might be easier to just say they have 75% or 90% crit immunity (like the _fortification_ ability), and assume that the crits that get through are head or heart strikes.


----------



## Gez (Oct 16, 2004)

I thought about adapting the Living Construct subtype to undead. Living Dead or whatever. So, some undead (vampires, maybe ghouls) would get this subtype, that would make them vulnerable to critical hits.


----------



## Sejs (Oct 16, 2004)

*Just a quick run-by before hitting the sack.*



> The anathema of all life is just misunderstood!





Yep!  Because - get this - not all life is good, either.  ^_^


----------



## Gez (Oct 16, 2004)

IMC, negative and positive energy are more like yin & yang. There's both in all living, and unliving, creatures. They are not balanced, however -- a healthy person is about 90% positive, 10% negative. Invert those numbers for undead.

But both are necessary. An undead without positive energy cannot move. A living creature without energy cannot rest.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 16, 2004)

I really liked the Buffy rationale over their rule. Translated to D&D it would be that hp represent an overall ability to turn lethal strikes into glancing blows. That's why Buffy beats the vampires up before bringing out the stake. She "softens" 'em up so that she can finish them off with a critical hit. Instead of having a flat chance that the critical wouldn't work (that tends to turn players off, IME), I'd restrict that to critical hits with a slashing weapon. If said critical does enough damage to kill the vampire, it goes poof! in Buffy-esque fashion. 

In a similar vein (heh!), I'd stat a stake to be a piercing light weapon (1d4/x2) that has a threat range of 19-20 vs. vampires and bypasses its DR. I'd follow the same rules as for a head hit, except that if it reduces a vampire to 0 hp with a critical hit, the stake hits the heart, with the usual effects.

That makes easier to make a Buffy-like character, with Improved Critical (stake). The Slayer Scythe (that funky guitar-like weapon from the series finale) would follow the rules for a dwarven urgrosh, excpet that the spear-end is replaced with a stake end.

But now I'm just rambling...


----------



## seankreynolds (Oct 16, 2004)

See also my variant rule for staking vampires here (it's near the bottom, just above the sample character).


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 20, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> No, it's just reprinted material, largely word-for-word...and truncated, of course because the entry is smaller.





Guess I'll have to wait for a Book of Fiends to get a good write up on Orcus.

That or hope GR gets a chance to licence Orcus into an adventure.

Mmm GR and Necro teaming up...god the possibility tingles my skin...


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 20, 2004)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> That's interesting. It might be easier to just say they have 75% or 90% crit immunity (like the _fortification_ ability), and assume that the crits that get through are head or heart strikes.




I've got to say, I like that idea.  Never did make any sense that undead were -always- crit-immune, anyways.  Not all of them are made up of unimportant parts or general 'material (psuedo-gaseous undead certainly have no vulnerable parts, such as wraiths, but something like a ghoul or a vampire is so much more organic in nature).  And then you can have spells like "Heart-Seeker", which might reduce that crit immunity.. mmn.. yesss.. Bursting vampires... I like it.


----------



## Felon (Oct 20, 2004)

Feh. Anyone know about when staking became accepted as a valid means to kill a vampire _outside of its coffin_? There's a reason that vampire-slaying kits came with a hammer, y'know!   

Matter of fact, I think more folks should be made aware that the stake wasn't even intended to kill the bloodsucker, just to keep it pinned down like a butterfly so the fearless vampire killer could put an axe to it with a modicum of safety. Just seems kind of funny that now we just accept the stake as some sort of magical vulnerability when it was originally just a tool that served simple, sensible purpose. 

So, anyway, who else thinks the half-vampire is pretty kick-ass for a mere +2 level-adjustment? 

+2 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Cha, DR 5/silver or magic, fast healing, Improved Initiative as a bonus feat, a special attack of your choice, natural armor +2, resistance to cold and electricity 5, and a +2 to Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Spot, and Bluff checks all adds up to a pretty sweet deal IMO.


----------



## Pants (Oct 20, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Guess I'll have to wait for a Book of Fiends to get a good write up on Orcus.
> 
> That or hope GR gets a chance to licence Orcus into an adventure.
> 
> Mmm GR and Necro teaming up...god the possibility tingles my skin...



BoF has very little info on Orcus. BoVD has much more.

Libris Mortis includes a truncuated writeup on Orcus (which is half a page or so), the Visages (old servants of Orcus), an Orcus related spell, and several other references to the pudgy demon prince. I'd say that BoF and LM have equal amounts of Orcus goodness, which is to say, they get a little bit of info, but not much.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 22, 2004)

Pants,


I meant the supposed 2005 release from WotC about Archfiends...

But I was aware that BoF from GR had very little on Orcus other than "name" and a few other things. Even so, BoF is a book I dearly love. Just not for the Orcus factor like I do in BoVD and now LM.


----------



## Pants (Oct 22, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Pants,
> 
> 
> I meant the supposed 2005 release from WotC about Archfiends...



There's a 2005 Fiend book coming out by WotC?!   
I thought that was an unsubstantiated rumor.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 22, 2004)

I believe it was said during a con (GenCon?) that the Monster Line will include at least two books for fiends.

 Ah, here is a GamingReport link.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 22, 2004)

Ah see I knew I wasn't dreaming/imagining this.

Thank Otu. You always save my bacon.


----------



## Pants (Oct 22, 2004)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I believe it was said during a con (GenCon?) that the Monster Line will include at least two books for fiends.
> 
> Ah, here is a GamingReport link.



Awesome.

Two? I wonder... 1 one for the demons and 1 for the devils?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 22, 2004)

Hmmm, does the Archfiends book mean the ram-headed Orcus-servant-demon thingies from Ghostwalk will get reprinted? I'm really disappointed that most of the Ghostwalk stuff hasn't made the jump to a regular monster book yet.


----------



## Vecna (Oct 22, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Awesome.
> 
> Two? I wonder... 1 one for the demons and 1 for the devils?




Maybe one for major races (demon, devil and daemon) and another for lesser ones (gehreleth, hordlings, rakshasa)


----------



## glass (Oct 22, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Aaron L said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I prefer to think of it as _part_ of the soul still being in the body. Therefore another part can go of and (eventually) become a pit fiend or whatever, and another part can  be contacted by speak with dead. Multi-part souls or quite common in real world mythology.

Plus, it nicely differentiates corporeal undead from living creatures (who are, after all, bodies with souls in them), and gels nicely with the vampire's lack of shadow = lack of soul thing.

Just my €0.02.


glass.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 22, 2004)

Vecna said:
			
		

> Maybe one for *major *races (demon, devil and *daemon*) and another for lesser ones (gehreleth, hordlings, rakshasa)



 Daemons a major race? In 3.x? 

 Seriously, I believe it will be one for the demons and one for the devils.


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 22, 2004)

*I'll give a critical eye like never before seen*



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I believe it was said during a con (GenCon?) that the Monster Line will include at least two books for fiends.
> 
> Ah, here is a GamingReport link.




If it was the same GenCon seminar I was at, that bit of info was snagged in response to a question I posed to Collins and Slavicsek IIRC.

That said, I worry about a Draconomicon style fiend book being written by WotC:

1) They have gigantic, titan sized shoes to fill. Anything they write will be judged against 'Hellbound: The Blood War' and 'Faces of Evil: The Fiends'.

2) Planar Handbook was a missed opportunity in many ways. They need to do better than that on planar material in a big way.

3) I want an ecology book on fiends, not a book of items, weapons, spells, endless encounter tables and PrCs. I'm not sure the current crop of products from WotC bodes well for that happening.

4) The current group at WotC will likely shaft the Yugoloths entirely as they have been for all of 3e.


----------



## Pants (Oct 22, 2004)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> 3) I want an ecology book on fiends, not a book of items, weapons, spells, endless encounter tables and PrCs. I'm not sure the current crop of products from WotC bodes well for that happening.



You already have that. It's called 'Faces of Evil.' Unfortunately, a book detailing the eating habits, bathroom habits, and how superbly awesome the yugoloths are will be useful to a small, select group of people, much less than say a book with fiendish spells, items, monsters, classes, and other stuff.  I'd much prefer a nice balance between the rules and the flavor-text... exactly like the Draconomicon and Frostburn to a lesser extent.



> 4) The current group at WotC will likely shaft the Yugoloths entirely as they have been for all of 3e.



Unfortunately...  :\ 

That said, if it's as good as LM, I'll be happy. I *hope* that they turn out to be big books (320 pages I'm hoping), but I'm not sure if I see that happening.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 22, 2004)

Shem,

Maybe they just fear the Loth or don't understand them. I mean they are mortals after all.


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 22, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Shem,
> 
> Maybe they just fear the Loth or don't understand them. I mean they are mortals after all.




Something like that. Sadly, I'm a mortal too and I should be working on a thesis and not posting to Enworld. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Or at least procrastinating on that and writing a storyhour update.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 23, 2004)

Eh. I'm just a mortal stuck doing janitor work until my world domination plan kicks in.


----------



## Pants (Oct 24, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Eh. I'm just a mortal stuck doing janitor work until my world domination plan kicks in.



Never trust the janitors!


----------

