Resurrection, True Resurrection and Undead PC's

[Kieperr]

From the SRD, under Undead Type:
"Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed."

"Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead."

So the spells says they cannot affect undead but the undead type says the spells can. If the spells affect an undead creature as the above states and you destroy the undead by reducing it to 0 hit points then it is no longer an undead creature. Has the errata changed any of this? At work and don't have access to it at the moment.

 

[frankthedm]

So the spells says they cannot affect undead but the undead type says the spells can. If the spells affect an undead creature as the above states and you destroy the undead by reducing it to 0 hit points then it is no longer an undead creature. Has the errata changed any of this? At work and don't have access to it at the moment.

Because the PHB is the primary source of spell information, the PHB text trumps the monster manual text. As to why the text is there in the MM...

1. The transition between creature and object is a hazy one in the D&D rules. The note in the undead type could be there to ensure legal targeting of the Ressurection spells once the critter is beaten up enough.

2. In previous editions, active undead could be brought directly back to life by some spells if they were willing, with a default answere of no they are not. Perhaps the writer had this stuck in thier mind at the time.

 

[Kallale]

That would be a hoot.

DM: You see a lich.
Cleric: I cast ressurection!
DM: Lich is ressurected back into a human wizard.
Former Lich: "Doh! I spent 180k on becoming a lich, not to mention that my minions won't recognize me now. DOH! Stupid ressurection spells, this is the 4th time this has happened this century!!"

Next session...
DM: You see a vampire
Cleric: I cast ressurection!!!
DM: $&#!
Cleric: What?!
DM: I meant, you see the Tarrasque.

 

[Legildur]

That would be a hoot.

DM: You see a lich.
Cleric: I cast ressurection!
DM: Lich is ressurected back into a human wizard.
Former Lich: "Doh! I spent 180k on becoming a lich, not to mention that my minions won't recognize me now. DOH! Stupid ressurection spells, this is the 4th time this has happened this century!!"....

Except that both Rez and True Rez have a casting time of 10 minutes.....

PS Welcome to the boards.

 

[Kieperr]

Because the PHB is the primary source of spell information, the PHB text trumps the monster manual text.

And the Monster Manual is the primary source of monster information, the MM text trumps the PHB text.

Both books are core and have equal standing. One does not trump the other in this case as we have a direct contradiction. The spell vs the type. One is as valid as the other.

In our game we use the monster type description as it also states that undead are unaffected by the lesser spells that return life as do the spells. Why would the type description state that some of these spells don't work while the others do when the spell descriptions say none of them work?

 

[Seeten]

I like the flavor of the res working on the lich, so that is how it will work in my games. Also, if the lich is then killed while he is human again, he reforms in 1d10 days as a lich.

(Phylactery is still viable and not destroyed.)

 

[frankthedm]

Why would the type description state that some of these spells don't work while the others do when the spell descriptions say none of them work?

I repeat.

The transition between creature and object is a hazy one in the D&D rules. The note in the undead type could be there to ensure legal targeting of the Ressurection spells once the critter is beaten up enough.


Though what it breaks down to is this, unless it is a true ressurection, the spell recipient is losing a level and thats really all that matters. Whether they have to be destroyed first i guess is irrelevent since if they are able to hang around for the casting time, they could have been destroyed anyhow.

 

[mvincent]

From the SRD, under Undead Type:
"Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed."

"Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead."

So the spells says they cannot affect undead but the undead type says the spells can. If the spells affect an undead creature as the above states and you destroy the undead by reducing it to 0 hit points then it is no longer an undead creature. Has the errata changed any of this? At work and don't have access to it at the moment.

Long ago I argued this exact side (rather vehemently and thoroughly... essentially 'winning' the argument even... through brute force). Much later (today, in a different thread), I realized that my interpretation wasn't likely the most correct one, and I am now advocating the other side.

The wording under the undead sub-type description is apparently misleading; I now believe it is actually referring to undead that have been destroyed (it is just rather unfortunate wording)

 

[Infiniti2000]

Both books are core and have equal standing. One does not trump the other in this case as we have a direct contradiction. The spell vs the type. One is as valid as the other.

Let's assume for the moment that your interpretation from the Undead type is correct, though I disagree. We both agree that the spells are clearly only supposed to work on undead creatures that were destroyed, right? This is from the spell description.

However, you still haven't explained the second error in both spells (making four errors vs. the single one from the Undead type description): "Target: Dead creature touched ." An undead creature is not dead.

Long ago argued this side (rather vehemently and thoroughly... essentially 'winning' the argument even... through brute force).

4 vs. a shaky 1. We win.

 

[mvincent]

An undead creature is not dead.

Really? Despite the name, I was under the impression that they were still viewed as dead. They are certainly not living! i.e. they've passed on... are no more... have ceased to be... expired and gone to meet their maker... they're stiffs... bereft of life. If they hadn't been raised from the grave they'd be pushing up the daisies! Their metabolic processes are now 'istory! They've kicked the bucket, shuffled off their mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!