Instead of just intelligent undead, i think i am going to rule ti to undead that have spell like abilites. Most intelligent do. I dont mind a vampire who is also a mage to haste, but not a vampire fighter. mmmm....well maybe.....damn this. I am just going to probably make it a will save.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Undead and haste
- Thread starter Junkheap
- Start date
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Rule 500
When common sense contradicts the rules, use common sense. Try to maintain balance, of course.
When common sense contradicts the rules, use common sense. Try to maintain balance, of course.
frog said:Since unintelligent undead simply follow their creators commands, can their creator simply command them to not resist a Haste spell in order to allow them to be hasted?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. That's probably a DM's call.
I'd suggest that it at least not be an order to "Never resist Haste spells." Mindless undead woudn't recognize it as a haste spell. An order to not resist the next spell the controller casts might be reasonable.
da chicken
First Post
Ki Ryn said:
As I already said, Skip Williams stated that while that would result in the spell working, that line of reasoning was not valid. It is the same as allowing an undead to "voluntarily forego" its immunity to critical hits, or immunity to poison. It can't because they don't work.
There is a relevant thread <HERE> on WotC's boards if you care to read it. Skip's reply is in the first post of the thread.
da chicken said:
The quote you indicate doesn't say what you think it says.
The questioner says:
> ...The problem I am having is that some people say the
> (harmless) clause makes the save voluntary, (and
> undead are only immune to spells that "require" a fort
> save) but page 150 of the PHB says that ALL saves are
> voluntary so I dont see how this could work that way.
Skip Replies:
Yes, undead can be hasted. The "harmless spells" reasoning is not exactly valid, but it fits the spirit of the rules.
Note - Skip says the harmless reasoning is not exactly valid. He does not refer at all to the ability to forego the save. While the questioner mentions it, Skip doesn't. Skip focuses on the question of the spell being harmless.
That sort of thing is common in e-mailing the Sage. Often he completely ignores some of the questioner's text, probably in an attempt to "cut to the chase". He's good. Very good, but not perfect. He answers a lot of questions, and doesn't have time to research and document his answers fully.
We don't refer to the fact that the spell is harmless. Instead, we refer to the fact that the book Skip helped wrote says this:
PHB, pg 150: "Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf's resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this if he or she wants to."
Note that this comes from the section on saving throws against magic spells, specifically. It thus applies to saves vs spells, not saves vs poison. Critical hits don't involve saves of any kind, and so are also not included.
Last edited:
da chicken
First Post
How can you possibly posit that when Skip says "The 'harmless spells' reasoning" he somehow doesn't mean "your entire argument"?
Not to mention the fact that you explicitly avoided the key phrase "Yes, undead can be hasted." No intelligent vs unintelligent. All undead.
Not to mention the fact that you explicitly avoided the key phrase "Yes, undead can be hasted." No intelligent vs unintelligent. All undead.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
