[3.5] Zombies - did I overplay them?

[Nich_Critic]

Hey all,

In our last session, I was running some encounters with zombies in a narrow cave complex. As most of you know, zombies can either charge, move, or attack in a given round due to the limited actions they get. Because of this, the party was able to run down the cave corridor, staying out of range of the zombies, attacking them with ranged weapons. This was fine.

The contentious issue I ran into came when I had a line of zombies down the corridor, and one of the PC's stopped to make a melee attack. Instead of having the lead zombie attack immediately, I moved him to surround the PC, forgoing the attack and taking an AoO, but letting the other zombies past to attack. This played a large part in the PC being knocked unconscious and almost dying.

Later, two zombies were within reach of another PC, but if the lead one had charged directly and attacked, the second couldn't also charge and attack. Again, I decided to move the lead one to cut off the escape of the PC, while the one behind was the one that attacked.

A third, less contentious event happened when I had the stronger type of zombie (human) attempt grapple checks, while the weaker and smaller zombies (kobolds) simply made normal attacks.

After the session, the party expressed that they felt that I had overplayed the zombies, who are of course supposed to be mindless. To me, I was having them operate more like a swarm, with their goal being to surround and eat the party, so cutting off the PCs escape fell in line with that, regardless of their lack of ability to use tactics. What does the playground think? Is there a line between a zombie acting too intelligently, and a zombie acting tactically, or are they inseparable? Does anyone have any tips for running mindless enemies in general? Should they really just form a conga line and march to their death?

[Fouredged Sword]

They lack an Int score, so they are mindless, but they have an average wisdom, so that suggests a degree of judgement and awareness despite the lack of reasoning. They should operate entirely on the instincts it had at time of death with no adaptation. Skeletons remember to use swords and shields, if they where trained in their use in life as that is an instinct.

If a zombie comes from a creature that would grab it's target and grapple then that is what the zombie is going to do. Koblod zombies would not, but something bigger may. Zombies that come from creatures that would surround and mob an enemy will do so. It is hardwired in their brain from when they had an int score. What they can't so is learn anything new. You cannot teach a kobold zombie to grapple. You can tell one to directly, but you can't teach something entirely new.

[Nich_Critic]

Thank you for your answer. The problem is that I'm not sure what these creatures (humans, in this case) would do instinctively. Do humans mob? Do they grapple? (I think that they might).

These specific humans were miners by trade. Should they be trying to mine the PC's?

To what extent does the will of the caster come into play here? If the caster orders the zombies to stop people from escaping a room, would that be enough for them to cut off exit and surround, or is that too complex of an order for the caster to have given?

[Fouredged Sword]

The answer is what would miners do if forced to fight. That is a question you as DM get to decide. I would say that they would mob the target with heavy picks. Grappling would totally be an option for some, as miners get in bar fights with fists and wrestling. They would totally not fight fair and attempt to gang up on targets.

I would also have them ignore people who fall over in preference for those still standing. They shouldn't necessarily instinctively be ingrained to make sure that their target stays down like a soldier would. Maybe one zombie stays to brawl after the PC falls over if they are still kicking, but the rest go for targets still standing.

If ordered to prevent escape they would block the exit with all the skill of a mob of hard working miners, likely standing in a disorganized blob with no ranks, generally blocking the way.

The is opposed to zombie soldiers who if ordered to block an exit may instinctively fall into ordered ranks.

Now I would offer a knowledge check DC 10 to realize that the zombies blocking the exit are not following basic zombie instincts though and thus must be following some sort of command.

[Essence_of_War]

I think the grappling example is probably fine.

Some of the others seem a little tactically savvy for mindless undead.

Giving up an attack in order to maneuver around someone is a tactical decision that is basically delayed gratification. The zombie is sacrificing an AoO to get itself and its buddy in a better position. I think there is a good argument that mindless undead shouldn't be able to make those sort of calculated options.

Now, if one zombie were already attacking them, and there was a path around the person, then I'd say it'd be fine for the zombies to move to swarm from all sides so they could all try to eat.

Edit:

At least as importantly though, is that they're played consistently. Zombies are too stupid to metagame the players as it were. Things like hobgoblins however...

[Amnestic]

That's a difficult question given what people's different perceptions can be of zombies, especially these days ("Infected", instead of zombies). I've always thought of zombies as a mindless wall of flesh which latches on to the first thing they see and follow it until they either get it or something else catches their attention.

I personally agree with your players on this...mostly. On the first two instances, I wouldn't have attempted to "cut" players off with clever maneuvering. I can't see a zombie doing that, personally. Grapples though should be totally fair game for zombies - I'd argue that they should be a staple of their attack patterns in fact.

Again though, that's based on my perception of what zombies should be and how they should act in D&D (and as a baseline in general). When in doubt, I look at the difference between say...Zerg/Tyranids and Zombies. Zombies are mindless, Zerg have a Hive Mind. That direction from the Hive Mind is what allows pack tactics like flanking and swarming around.


Should they really just form a conga line and march to their death?

That's what mindless is, to me. Zombies are dangerous due to numbers and relentlessness. You say your party was in a narrow cave complex - would they have run out of space eventually? Were there any alternative routes the zombies might've been on to join the encounter as they were making a fighting retreat?

[Fouredged Sword]

Also consider the tactical savvy of their commander. You said these zombies had orders. How specific are these orders? Did the boss say to surround and hold foes or just to attack them? Did the boss say to cut off retreat? Decide this before the encounter and don't change the rules on your players. Resist the urge to have the zombies adapt or take tactical advantage of a situation.

Let the players check to see if they understand the zombies are acting strangely though and let them try to use that to their advantage.

[Kyberwulf]

I think a zombie would react to stimuli. Say the lead zombie sees someone. Its starts to head towards the PCs. It will go towards the nearest pc. Unless something else grabs it's attention. Then it can't evaluate which target to go towards, since it can't really make tactical decisions. It will head to the thing that most recently attracted its notice. Such as light, noise or movement.

I don't think it impossible for zombies to work as a group. I think humans are hardwired into that instinct. That being said, I don't believe zombies are capable of complex ambushes and overt tactical attacks. Simple ideals, such as don't let the food escape, might be a good thing to allow zombies.

[weezul]

You've basically described two behaviours:

1. zombie moves around PC to cut off retreat
2. zombie grapples instead of regular attack

The second situation is easier, so I'll start with that. One could argue that this is normal behaviour for a zombie. Take down the victim before chowing down. In fact, I think you did exactly what you should have. Totally makes sense.

First situation is the more controversial one. Makes sense from a swarm behaviour perspective. The trickier part for me is the fact that I view zombies as selfish creatures. They don't act as a "team". They may swarm, but ultimately, they are out for personal satisfaction (chewing on your juicy brain bits). So, did you overplay them? Maybe.

But, we always have to remember that in-game combat is following certain prescribed rules. However, when describing the combat after the fact, you can explain it away (e.g. "the zombie lunged with hunger in its eyes. It was easy to sidestep the attack, but with horror, the PC realized that it was now behind him and he was surrounded"). The flaw here is that getting surrounded was because of the PC's action, while clearly it was the GM who made it happen.

Ultimately, the point is, you tried to create an exciting, frightening encounter for the PC's against a normally easy to avoid enemy. I think you succeeded.

[Nich_Critic]

Thanks everyone. I'll consider giving them some bonus exp for having fought some exceptionally smart zombies.

[Slipperychicken]

The zombies can mob without needing organization. They can move through friendly characters' spaces without special actions or intelligence. But it would make more sense if the first zombie moved straight up to attack, then the others moved around him.

[Spuddles]

The zombies can mob without needing organization. They can move through friendly characters' spaces without special actions or intelligence. But it would make more sense if the first zombie moved straight up to attack, then the others moved around him.

Exactly what I was thinking.

End results would be the same.

[Nich_Critic]

The problem with that is that you can't charge through an allied player's square, so the first zombie needed to be out of the way for the second zombie to be able to charge, so it wasn't equivalent. The second zombie was far enough behind the first in that instance that they would have ended up side by side if the first had attacked. The contentious issue is that I had the first zombie move around to make room for the zombies following it, which I guess is a little bit too clever.