THE OotS Thread, Part IV.

[Rogue 9]

They turn to mist and return straight to their coffins. These have no coffins; they're very recently dead and haven't been buried. I don't remember what the rules are for when that happens, but I'm pretty sure they aren't good for the vampire.

[LadyTevar]

They turn to mist and return straight to their coffins. These have no coffins; they're very recently dead and haven't been buried. I don't remember what the rules are for when that happens, but I'm pretty sure they aren't good for the vampire.

There's also the fact that Roy's weapon is very damaging to the Undead. Too much damage might stop the Mistform transformation and truly kill it

[Rogue 9]

1103 has been up for a couple of days. No solution to their problem is yet forthcoming.

[Highlord Laan]

Stuff like this is why my characters always have a good wisdom score and take Iron Will early.

[Raesene]

1104 is up

Good point...

[FaxModem1]

I wish to note that assuming that Talking is a Free Action has bitten them in the butt before, such as when Belkar was offered a deal.

[Simon_Jester]

This kind of thing is why you really, really want telepathic communication networks among your party.

[Solauren]

would you really want a way for Belkar to send you telepathic messages whenever he wanted?

[Simon_Jester]

Elan might actually be the real problem there.

I guess you want a network with an off switch?

[Solauren]

Elan might actually be the real problem there.

I guess you want a network with an off switch?

Sign language would probably be better.

I mean, it was all the rage back when that Arcana was Unearthed

But in all seriousness, I remember reading a spell like that when d20 system was first out. Can't remember the publisher, but for each person in the web, everyone got +1 to all skill checks and the like, in addition to the telepathic aspects.

[Solauren]

Ah, I found it!

Hive Mind
Sor/Wiz 7
it's from Green Ronin's Plot and Poison, a Guidebook to Drow (GRR1103)
Sorry, I don't have an OEF copy of the PDF.

[Ralin]

I like to think that V used her high Intelligence score to realize the consequences of the vampires listening and lied about what spell she had Quickened. And also that Haley is smart enough to switch from closing her eyes now that she knows the vampires probably won't be bothering with domination attempts.

[Simon_Jester]

It would be good to think so; it depends on whether V is played as being smart, or as being... parodically book-smart.

The former would be interesting and sometimes V behaves that way. The latter is more in keeping with that old-time "Dungeon Crawlin' Fools" goodness that got us all hooked in the first place, a thousand pages ago...

[Raesene]

1105 is up

Oh Boy. ...

[Bedlam]

Wow, that's certainly a call back to what 800 stips ago?

[LadyTevar]

YES YES! I CALLED IT YEARS AGO! Loki's little priestess is back, and yes, that's Durkon's kid!

[Venator]

Rich has repeatedly demonstrated that he is the goddamn MASTER of the I-almost-forgot-about-that call back, or in this case, Chekhov's Uterus.

[Raesene]

Bringing back a character from more than 1000 strips back was unexpected, but Durkon seeing he has a kid might just be the motivation to provide a strong distraction to Durkula in the fight.

He just can't hand over the wee little one's soul to Hel.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know, Durkon seems pretty close to maximally motivated already. The main limit on his effectiveness is the intelligence and competence with which he can carry out his own plans... Which appear to revolve around methodically misleading Durkula into acting stupidly or ineffectively, by providing him with selectively slanted memories from Durkon's own past.

[Solauren]

I'm pleased to see everyone's favorite cleric of Loki back.
Durkon's kid, not unexpected in context. Natural consequence of sex.

At least they have another high powered cleric to help.

[Rogue 9]

Insofar as she's going to help them. Even if she doesn't decide that leaving Durkon in the clutches of Durkula is the worst thing she can do to him, her interest stops there, and she'd doubtless oppose any attempt to resurrect Durkon.

[Terralthra]

Is it even possible to resurrect Durkon? Laurin seemed to imply that when Nale killed Malack that resurrecting Malack would be impossible, justifying disintegrating Nale's body as eye for an eye. On the other hand, Resurrection explicitly says you can resurrect an undead that has been destroyed and that a disintegrated creature's remains are legitimate for the spell as well.

So what's the deal here?

[Ralin]

Is it even possible to resurrect Durkon? Laurin seemed to imply that when Nale killed Malack that resurrecting Malack would be impossible, justifying disintegrating Nale's body as eye for an eye.

They've made it fairly explicit that resurrecting Malack would have resurrected the shaman he was however many centuries ago when he got turned into a vampire. As far as I know there is no 'restore a destroyed undead creature to existence as that undead creature' spell, meaning that any attempt to do so would be in 'Cast Wish and gamble on DM fiat' territory, and further complicated by Burlew's houserule on how vampires work.

And it's entirely possible they don't know anyone who can cast Wish and didn't think finding a scroll of it was a viable option.

[Simon_Jester]

Insofar as she's going to help them. Even if she doesn't decide that leaving Durkon in the clutches of Durkula is the worst thing she can do to him, her interest stops there, and she'd doubtless oppose any attempt to resurrect Durkon.

Maybe.

On the other hand, she may have mixed or conflicting feelings regarding Durkon. Furthermore, we see no evidence she's not a loyal servant of Loki, and Loki has pretty clear-cut interests here along the lines of "do not allow the world to be destroyed." So Hilgya's help can probably be counted on for the duration of the immediate crisis.

Is it even possible to resurrect Durkon? Laurin seemed to imply that when Nale killed Malack that resurrecting Malack would be impossible, justifying disintegrating Nale's body as eye for an eye. On the other hand, Resurrection explicitly says you can resurrect an undead that has been destroyed and that a disintegrated creature's remains are legitimate for the spell as well.

So what's the deal here?

Well, they didn't have Malack's remains; he crumbled into dust and blew away in the wind so they don't even have enough of the dust to resurrect, I guess. And as noted, it's likely that resurrecting Malack would just get them a centuries-old lizardman shaman, not their vampire buddy.

Disintegrating people and blowing away the ashes/dust afterwards does seem to be an accepted method in Burlew's setting for destroying someone beyond possibility of resurrection (at least without what is in-setting ridiculously high-level cleric magic). Compare to what V did to Lord Kubota.

[Solauren]

It is entirely possible to resurrect undead creatures back to life. Be it simple Skeleton to Demilich.

They have to be willing to return.

Once they stake Drukula, however, they can resurrect the Durkon normally.

As for bringing back Undead Creatures that were killed as Undead Creatures......

Revive Undead
Necromancy [evil]
Level: deathbound 5, sorcerer/wizard 6
Spoiler

Components: v, s, m
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: touch
target: destroyed undead creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: none
Spell Resistance: no
Touching the corpse of the creature, you whisper to its departed spirit, calling it back - but not to life.

Your restore animation to an undead creature destroyed by hit point loss (even a zombie or skeleton, which can’t normally be reanimated once destroyed). You can revive a destroyed undead creature that has been inactive for up to one day per caster level. In addition, the subject’s animating spirit must be free and willing to return. If the subject’s animating spirit is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, subjects that want to revive receive no saving throw.

Revive undead restores hit points to the subject up to a total of 1 hit point per hit die. The body of the undead to be revived must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is reanimated. None of the dead creature’s equipment or possessions are affected in any way by this spell.

An undead that has been destroyed by a turning effect can’t be revived by this spell.

The subject of the spell loses one level or hit die (if it doesn’t have a character class level, it loses a hd) when it is revived. This level loss cannot be repaired by any spell. If the subject is 1st level, it loses 2 points of charisma instead. An undead that was destroyed with spells prepared has a 50% chance of losing any given spell upon being revived, in addition to losing spells for losing a level. A spellcasting undead creature that doesn’t prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) has a 50% chance of losing any given unused spell slot as if it had been used to cast a spell, in addition to losing spell slots for losing a level.

Material component: a black pearl worth at least 5,000 gp.

Originally from Libris Mortis, and reprinted/updated in the Spell Compendium for D&D3.5

That might not be feasible with a vampire destroyed by Sunlight or a Stake, but you now have a legal precendent for making a higher level 'True Revive Undead' that also restores them to unlife regardless of reason for ceasation (like staking, sunlight, or being dusted and then the original being being resurrected).