All Zombie Campaign (Problems?)

[Kansaschaser]

I'm thinking of running a D&D[3.5/3.P] game where in the first game session, the entire party is attacked by a level 20 necromancer and his zombie minions. The entire party is killed by the zombies. Then, they all come back as zombies, but instead of being mindless, they all have their old memories, class abilities, and skills. The players don't know why, but they seem to be "special" since they remember their previous life.

In this world, someone probably did the "City Bomb - Wightpocolypse". Most of the world is now udead with scattered pockets of living here and there.

What are some of the problems one might encounter while running this kind of game? Obviously, I don't have to worry about food, sleeping, or breathing. But, if you play a Warforged, you don't worry about that stuff anyway.

[Eonir]

Clerics are going to ruin their day. Often.

[Kansaschaser]

Clerics are going to ruin their day. Often.

Hmmm, good point. And what if one of the players decides to make a Cleric themself? When they use Turn Undead, would it affect the Cleric first since he's technically the closest to the holy symbol?

I know I said there would be very few living left. It would be kind of like The Walking Dead. There would be mostly undead, with a few small pockets of living here and there. I don't have to be a mean DM and throw them up against Clerics that often.

[Private]

Healing will probably be tough, as well as any interaction with NPCs who want to smash them.

[lorddrake]

Healing will probably be tough, as well as any interaction with NPCs who want to smash them.

Unless one of them is a Dread Necromancer and just goes about healing all day...

[Kansaschaser]

Healing will probably be tough, as well as any interaction with NPCs who want to smash them.

Most of the other NPC's they would encounter in this world would probably also be undead. There are very few living people/animals left in this post-wightpocolypse world.

[Coidzor]

Use the necropolitan template instead.

[Godskook]

Precision damage is almost entirely nerfed out of use. Houserules should be considered.

[Kansaschaser]

Use the necropolitan template instead.

Necropolitan are from Libris Mortis right?

[CTrees]

Use the necropolitan template instead.

+1d100

So many advantages over modified zombies.

[Rubik]

Necropolitan are from Libris Mortis right?Definitely, yes.

Also, consider using the ghost savage progression (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040117a) for whichever players may care for it.

Make sure they know about the Ghostly Grasp feat from Libris Mortis.

Oh, and make sure the players know beforehand that it's going to be an all-undead campaign, so nobody makes a cleric focused on turning undead (due to self-destruction issues) or a rogue.

[The Dark Fiddler]

It's probably not going to be fun to just get curbstomped, especially if you spring it on them as a surprise. Consider skipping the battle and starting after.

[Rubik]

It's probably not going to be fun to just get curbstomped, especially if you spring it on them as a surprise. Consider skipping the battle and starting after.If the players know beforehand that it's going to be a full-undead campaign, but they're told to make non-undead characters (to be undeadified later), then a curbstomp probably wouldn't be a horrible idea, especially if they're hit with, say, a Fell Drain Locate City Bomb.

They know it's coming, as they were forewarned, and that the railroading is merely to facilitate the entire game.

But the key is that they KNOW what's up to begin with.

Also, expect everyone to dump Con. I know I would. And make sure everyone gets bonus hp each level; they'll need it.

[Rejusu]

Hmmm, good point. And what if one of the players decides to make a Cleric themself? When they use Turn Undead, would it affect the Cleric first since he's technically the closest to the holy symbol?

I know I said there would be very few living left. It would be kind of like The Walking Dead. There would be mostly undead, with a few small pockets of living here and there. I don't have to be a mean DM and throw them up against Clerics that often.

By RAW technically it would, but by RAI/RAMS it shouldn't. The problem is that any turning/rebuking would affect the rest of the party so there's no chance of being able to use it offensively. HOWEVER there are defensive uses of rebuking, per the SRD:

Dispelling Turning
An evil cleric may channel negative energy to dispel a good cleric’s turning effect. The evil cleric makes a turning check as if attempting to rebuke the undead. If the turning check result is equal to or greater than the turning check result that the good cleric scored when turning the undead, then the undead are no longer turned. The evil cleric rolls turning damage of 2d6 + cleric level + Charisma modifier to see how many Hit Dice worth of undead he can affect in this way (as if he were rebuking them).

Bolstering Undead
An evil cleric may also bolster undead creatures against turning in advance. He makes a turning check as if attempting to rebuke the undead, but the Hit Dice result on Table: Turning Undead becomes the undead creatures’ effective Hit Dice as far as turning is concerned (provided the result is higher than the creatures’ actual Hit Dice). The bolstering lasts 10 rounds. An evil undead cleric can bolster himself in this manner.

So if one of them does play a cleric you can still throw other clerics at them without being too mean about it, as they will have a method of defending against it. If it's intended for the party to be "good" undead though then you may want to consider adjusting the alignment restrictions if someone wants to play a cleric. If they're going to be evil then you should be fine.

Keep in mind though that despite their bonuses D&D undead can be remarkably fragile. Sure they have D12's as hit die but they also have no CON bonus to their HP, they're immune to the majority of fortitude saves but the one's they're not immune to (those that target objects or undead specifically) they'll have a hard time with due to the lack of a CON score. They also need alternative sources of healing and clerics can cause some major headaches for them. In addition they have 10 less effective HP than a living PC does since undead are destroyed upon hitting 0HP and don't have that 0 to -9 buffer.

I'd recommend the party actually takes a Cleric, consider giving them bonus HP, and house rule it so that the cleric can exclude themselves and the rest of the party from their rebuking attempts. Except when trying to bolster, dispel them of course. You may also need to house rule it that channelling negative energy isn't inherently evil if your party wants to stay good aligned. The cleric could only rebuke though, as turning requires channelling positive energy and that'd end badly.

[Kansaschaser]

Yeah, I figured I'd have to do a lot of "house rules" since I intended to make them intelligent Zombies.

If I use the Necropolitan, then I may not have to use so many house rules. I am leaning toward the Necropolitan right now.

I really like surprising my players with things like this. I've done weird stuff (shrinking the party to microscopic size, using temporal causality loops, or blasting them millions of light years into space on a Spelljammer) like this before and I'm pretty sure my players are used surprises like this. My players know that I won't "railroad" them into making certain decisions. This setting is just more for flavor and I wanted their characters to experience the dread and death of an undead apocalypse as it happened, not just playing in the world after the fact.

[CTrees]

Keep in mind though that despite their bonuses D&D undead can be remarkably fragile. Sure they have D12's as hit die but they also have no CON bonus to their HP, they're immune to the majority of fortitude saves but the one's they're not immune to (those that target objects or undead specifically) they'll have a hard time with due to the lack of a CON score. They also need alternative sources of healing and clerics can cause some major headaches for them. In addition they have 10 less effective HP than a living PC does since undead are destroyed upon hitting 0HP and don't have that 0 to -9 buffer.

Pathfinder rules make this a little easier, dropping HD to d8 but automatically giving Cha to HP and Cha to Fort. It only takes a 14 Cha to get back to equal average HP, and Fort saves should be higher for anything but negative Cha. However, being susceptable to sneak attack hurts (though on balance, I think the various changes to undead PF made to be pretty good).


I'd recommend the party actually takes a Cleric, consider giving them bonus HP, and house rule it so that the cleric can exclude themselves and the rest of the party from their rebuking attempts. Except when trying to bolster, dispel them of course. You may also need to house rule it that channelling negative energy isn't inherently evil if your party wants to stay good aligned. The cleric could only rebuke though, as turning requires channelling positive energy and that'd end badly.

PF again... The Selective Channeling feat largely solves the problem of hurting one's party or healing one's enemies. Turning is nerfed to Baator and back, but negative energy channelling nicely solves the healing problem.

I'm evangelizing Pathfinder a little too much, but my current campaign is pretty undead heavy, and since my backup in case of TPK is having the party switch sides and try to control the wightpocalypse (vice destroying it) and use it to defeat the OTHER competing, evil army, I've given some thought recently to how much easier PF makes this, at list with some splat support pulled in from 3.5.

EDIT:
My players know that I won't "railroad" them into making certain decisions.

"Twentieth level NPC kills you" always leads me to nicknaming said NPC "Thomas" or "Percy" or "Sir Topham Hat," and renaming the campaign setting as "The Island of Sodor." You know, because I'm occassionally MASSIVELY passive agressive.

[Mystify]

I'd recommend a ruling that undead clerics automatically channel negative energy, regardless of alignment. Then when they make a cleric that channels positive energy on the intent to be able to heal, it will still serve that purpose, and is thematically appropriate. It also avoids any self-destruct issues.

The hp is probably the biggest issue. if you use the pathfinder method, sorcerers become amazing. That is about as SAD as you can get. If the players are not expecting to be undead, most of them will probably be sinking good stats into con, and ignoring charisma, so it will create further problems.
What you might consider instead is sticking with the normal d12, but house rule that con boosting items, though not actually boosting the non-existent con, still grant extra hp.
Another way would be to let the characters substitute their old con score for their charisma score, so the con-heavy characters still get their hp.
A simular issue arrises if you have barbarians or other con-based characters. If the barbarian can only rage for 3 rounds he will be unhappy, and he will miss the extra hp. You could let him base rage on charisma instead, and substitute the con bonus for a charisma bonus. This has the side effect of boosting their intimidate when raging, but you can't say that doesn't make sense.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Yeah, I figured I'd have to do a lot of "house rules" since I intended to make them intelligent Zombies.

If I use the Necropolitan, then I may not have to use so many house rules. I am leaning toward the Necropolitan right now.

I really like surprising my players with things like this. I've done weird stuff (shrinking the party to microscopic size, using temporal causality loops, or blasting them millions of light years into space on a Spelljammer) like this before and I'm pretty sure my players are used surprises like this. My players know that I won't "railroad" them into making certain decisions. This setting is just more for flavor and I wanted their characters to experience the dread and death of an undead apocalypse as it happened, not just playing in the world after the fact.

Tell them not to make clerics or rogues anyway.

And yes, "a 20th level NPC kills you and you rise as a zombie" is the definition of railroading after the game starts. Before the game starts, whether by making it part of the backstory or informing players it's going to happen, it's just a premise.

[Mystify]

Tell them not to make clerics or rogues anyway.

And yes, "a 20th level NPC kills you and you rise as a zombie" is the definition of railroading after the game starts. Before the game starts, whether by making it part of the backstory or informing players it's going to happen, it's just a premise.
So its not a premise if you don't tell them ahead of time?:smallconfused:

[Krotchrot]

As one of the Players of Kansaschaser's games, I can vouch, he is a GREAT DM. We have had some of the most Amazing games! My favorite being a Halloween game, we all dressed up, answered the door, gave candy, all while still in character. Twas Awesome. He's not known for "railroading" a game like another DM I play under. I actually prefer the flavor he brings, that and I absolutely came to love Faerun with him as DM.

Now then, I would love to do the Zombie Apoc. game, that said dealing with a Cleric, mayhaps something with one of the Undead Gods "flipping the tables" with Turning/Rebuke maybe a Planar Disturbance with the Negative/Positive Planes?

This is sort of like the 5th edition thread to, I think that Negative Energy is not always considered "Evil" nor Positive Energy always "Good". Eye of the Beholder is the way I see things.

That also being said, another crack at PF is always fun, I loved my Witch, though alot of abilities that affect the mind do not affect Undead, so you are looking at nerfing a bit of Battlefield Controllers abilities.

[The Anarresti]

If you tell them ahead of time, then why waste playtime going through the motions of a battle that everyone knows the outcome to anyway? In my group, we have a policy of "skip to the fun stuff" and just glossing over the "boring but important" stuff, because we only have so much time to play anyway, and everyone would rather play a dynamic game than passively wait for their character to be killed and subsequently reanimated.

[Callos_DeTerran]

As one of the Players of Kansaschaser's games, I can vouch, he is a GREAT DM. We have had some of the most Amazing games! My favorite being a Halloween game, we all dressed up, answered the door, gave candy, all while still in character. Twas Awesome. He's not known for "railroading" a game like another DM I play under. I actually prefer the flavor he brings, that and I absolutely came to love Faerun with him as DM.

It's worth pointing out that railroading isn't an inherently bad term, it's just a fair number of DMs mess up in the execution of said rail-roading and it becomes a bad thing. If Kansaschaser can pull it off, then kudos to you and your group!

...Just my two cents is all, this is still technically rail-roading but it can be done well...

And who knows, maybe they'll get lucky and kill the necromancer. XD

[CTrees]

It's worth pointing out that railroading isn't an inherently bad term, it's just a fair number of DMs mess up in the execution of said rail-roading and it becomes a bad thing. If Kansaschaser can pull it off, then kudos to you and your group!

...Just my two cents is all, this is still technically rail-roading but it can be done well...

For the record, I agree. Some railroading is often completely necessary to at least make sure the party continues adventuring. The trick is in how it's done, and avoiding feeling like Super Mario Bros.


And who knows, maybe they'll get lucky and kill the necromancer. XD

One of my players still tells the story about the introductory fight he once had. High level drow caster was supposed to dominate everyone, take them prisoner, etc. The guy rolled seven twenties in a row, in a houserule system where a natural twenty on a critical hit confirmation was an instant kill. Pretty sure it ended with an identical NPC 'porting in and finishing the fight "properly." Dead super-NPCs happen, and it's almost always hilarious (at least to watch the DM cry).

[Krotchrot]

Very true in all accounts. Our gaming group that plays under Kansaschaser right now are rolling in a d6 Star Wars game with him DMing, going great, throwing some interesting surprises at us. I think he will do just fine with throwing the zombie apoc. at us.

I think at this point it's mostly figuring out the mechanics of how a world turned Zombie would work out.

[Rejusu]

For the record, I agree. Some railroading is often completely necessary to at least make sure the party continues adventuring. The trick is in how it's done, and avoiding feeling like Super Mario Bros.

Exactly, perfectly executed railroading should result in players that don't even know they've been railroaded. The simplest way to do this is twofold:

1) No matter what your players choose to do, always have them end up in the same place. You want them to go fight an evil wizard? Just have him show up where ever the players decide to go. Whether it's in a castle or a deep cave, in the south or the north.

2) Don't give your players quests. Seriously quests trap DM's into railroading more than anything else. You come up with some big epic quest which you think is awesome, you present it to the players and they decide the opposite direction is more attractive. If you then pull the above trick and the quest objective is suddenly where they happen to be then even the slowest witted players will probably cotton on to the fact they've been railroaded.

Simply if players know what's coming they can go out of their way to avoid it, if it shows up anyway then it's suspicious. However if they don't really know what's coming it gives you plausible deniability. You can put them on a quest but don't be too specific as to what it involves. Or just give them a number of vague quests that are in fact all the same quest with a few minor differences. Since they'll never do the other quests they'll never realise the choice was a false one.

All in all the illusion of choice is much more important than actual choice.


One of my players still tells the story about the introductory fight he once had. High level drow caster was supposed to dominate everyone, take them prisoner, etc. The guy rolled seven twenties in a row, in a houserule system where a natural twenty on a critical hit confirmation was an instant kill. Pretty sure it ended with an identical NPC 'porting in and finishing the fight "properly." Dead super-NPCs happen, and it's almost always hilarious (at least to watch the DM cry).

That's nothing. We were introduced to the BBEG, a high level Drow cleric, while doing a pit fight against some... spider centaur things? I can't remember exactly what monsters they were. Anyway one of our party had managed to escape the pit because he had a magic ring which made him ethereal. The interesting thing was it didn't make the ring ethereal and where he moved in the ethereal plane the ring moved in the material plane.

Long story short he ended up pushing the cleric into the pit by punching her with the ring. The spider things we were fighting decided they hated the BBEG more than they hated us (since they were slaves) and proceeded to cast silence on her. At which point our party of level 8 (I think) characters proceeded to beat the snot out of the cleric with no equipment and no ways to cast spells.

My DM just ran with the whole thing because it was more amusing this way.