pawsplay
Hero
Yes, but rabies kills the host. This line of thinking only works as an analogy if you say the undead don't metabolize, they are only consumed.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Undead with a ring of sustenance?
- Thread starter Nebrok
- Start date
Yes, but rabies kills the host. This line of thinking only works as an analogy if you say the undead don't metabolize, they are only consumed.
As we don't have undead...anymore...yes but this is a real world virus that changes and effects it's host so that it can propagate. Death is a side effect of the host not being able to support the growing virus. Even if it did not kill the host, it still causes them to change their nature and try to spread, the host does not have a say in the matter, the virus has to go somewhere as it consumes and expands in the the host, just for the resources.
Which then bring to question, who does the ring of sustenance provide the meal; the host or the virus? This could be seen as a tape worm issue, the undead wearing the ring, slowly is starving, no matter how much they eat, they just have to have more and more, the worm feeds off them!
pawsplay
Hero
Simply because nourishment is life-sustaining does not mean it is not undead-sustaining. That would be a logical fallacy. Certainly, to use the tapeworm analogy, the undead would benefit from nourishment to the physical form ("host"). However, there is ample evidence that undead can and do eat. Ghouls eat flesh, vampires drink blood. Both are "life-sustaining nourishment."
Nor undead.
Does it work with warforge, I don't know.To continue the debate/discussion;
What activates the ring? What does something alive have that the undead and robots do not? A soul/the spark of life/spirit/a connection with somehting possitive, is the first thing that pops into mind (again based on your views and mythology). So, that can explain why it would not work on the undead.
pawsplay
Hero
No, that's incorrect. Both vampires and many living things eat blood. Both humans and ghouls eat flesh.
And, let's check something - how many undead need to feed in order to survive?
Any of them? A quick scan of the vampire in the 3e MM says nothing about needing to feed. It can feed, but no mention is made of their undead status terminating if they don't feed. As far as I can tell by the MM you might run across a vampire that's been buried in an airtight tomb for hundreds of years without "food", hale and hearty.
The typical rule for starvation and dehydration are... constitution checks - and undead have no constitution score, and need to make such checks, and are immune to any effect that forces a Fortitude save. In fact, the description of their type includes that they do not need to eat, breathe, or sleep.
In 3e, the ring is made using the "Create Food and Drink" spell. I would presume that it will sustain anyone who (or anything that) would be sustained by repeated castings of that spell.
Last edited:
ValhallaGH
Explorer
It is an interesting idea.
If allowed, it opens up a lot of ways to use undead that can be both more heroic and more insidiously evil depending upon the characters and the DM. It also makes undead PCs more viable and likely.
If disallowed then it further differentiates between life and unlife, indicating a more metaphysical component to the "sustenance" provided by various undead dietary habits.
Either way, it's an interesting point to consider, one that can alter how one's campaign world works. Best of all, the final decision is entirely up to the DM.
Ashtagon
Adventurer
An external combustion engine (aka steam engine) can be fed with human flesh as easily as it can be fed with coal. That doesn't make it alive.
Don't confuse the consumables with what the consumables are powering.
Similar Threads
