Undead As A Subtype

[Fax Celestis]

In my opinion, Undead would function better as a subtype than as a type. Do people agree? How would you go about making the conversion, if so?

[Collin152]

I could see this, but undead has so many alterations that it really makes more sence as it stands.

[Jasdoif]

In my opinion, Undead would function better as a subtype than as a type. Do people agree? How would you go about making the conversion, if so?Absolutely. I remember suggesting it myself :smalltongue:


For simplicity, or at least the first draft, it'd likely give the same type traits it does now (including the lack of Con score), as well as the d12 hit die. The main reason for making it a subtype is because just about anything can be made into an undead, and having it as a subtype clarifies weird effects related to types, like the undead level 20 monk thing.

Effects that affect undead now affect things with the Undead subtype; while effects that target other types stay the same.

[Fax Celestis]

So, according to that, Jasdoif, you'd say that a Humanoid (Human, Undead) would be affected by enlarge person, have no Con Score, and have a d12 HD?

[blue_fenix]

I don't see the need for a distinction between types and subtypes. Why not just think of things as potentially having multiple types, some of which are incompatible? Adjust some of the wordings here and there and everything's just peachy.

[Fax Celestis]

I don't see the need for a distinction between types and subtypes. Why not just think of things as potentially having multiple types, some of which are incompatible? Adjust some of the wordings here and there and everything's just peachy.

That sort of defeats the purpose of types and subtypes.

[Jasdoif]

So, according to that, Jasdoif, you'd say that a Humanoid (Human, Undead) would be affected by enlarge person, have no Con Score, and have a d12 HD?Yes, that is what I'm saying.

[blue_fenix]

That sort of defeats the purpose of types and subtypes.

That's exactly my question, though. What IS the purpose of distinguishing types from subtypes?

[Fax Celestis]

That's exactly my question, though. What IS the purpose of types and subtypes?

The first is that types and subtypes define the features of a creature, such as racial HD, racial BAB and saves, and other traits. The second is that certain spells and effects only target specific types (like hold person). Without types, that'd be a DM's nightmare; with them, it's easy.

[blue_fenix]

I edited my previous post for a clearer question, but I'll repeat - Why do you need to have subtypes in addition to types? e.g. Why is Fire a subtype and not a type?

[Fax Celestis]

I edited my previous post for a clearer question, but I'll repeat - Why do you need to have subtypes in addition to types? e.g. Why is Fire a subtype and not a type?

Because you can be a fiery elemental, or a fiery construct, or a fiery monstrous humanoid. Subtypes are generally applicable to anyone, while types are specifics.

[Jasdoif]

I edited my previous post for a clearer question, but I'll repeat - Why do you need to have subtypes in addition to types? e.g. Why is Fire a subtype and not a type?The primary difference is that a Type, like a class, defines hit dice, saves, BAB, skill points...all those properties that make the bare minimum of a creature. A subtype serves more as a modifier to these, or adds other qualities, or simply serves as a distinguishing property.

Making everything a type and allowing multiple types would be a nightmare. If you have a (Dragon, Fire, Outsider) creature, which BAB does it use? Which saves? Etc. Having a single type avoids accidents and misunderstandings. If a subtype changes one of those core factors, it will at least explicitly say so.

[MeklorIlavator]

I edited my previous post for a clearer question, but I'll repeat - Why do you need to have subtypes in addition to types? e.g. Why is Fire a subtype and not a type?

Because if it was a type, spells that effect outsider wouldn't effect fire elementals, so a line of text would be added, detailing which spells effect Fire elementals. Not bead, until this has to be done for every spell and every creature in any publication. And a DM has to check this each time a problem spell comes up. Congratulations, you just outdid the grapple rules.

[blue_fenix]

I guess that makes sense. Merely saying that you can only have one type and then being allowed to add one or more subtypes does prevent the confusion of making lists of incompatible types.

[Fax Celestis]

So, back to the original question: undead as a subtype: yea or nay?

[MeklorIlavator]

I think I could work, though a Rangers Favored enemy would need to be updated slightly, to allow targeting all undead as a unit, or as a additional choice for each type.

[Fax Celestis]

Ooh, I hadn't thought of that.

[MeklorIlavator]

Personally, I say let them spend 1 favored enemy to target all undead. Its not like it would unbalance them.

[Yakk]

How does this change the stats of:
Zombie Human
Skeleton Dragon
Zombie Dragon

if at all?

...

It does mean that a zombie elf takes extra damage from a ranger with favored enemy: elf.

[Fax Celestis]

How does this change the stats of:
Zombie Human
Skeleton Dragon
Zombie Dragon

if at all?

...

It does mean that a zombie elf takes extra damage from a ranger with favored enemy: elf.

Well, it would mean that a creature would be Dragon (Undead) instead of Undead (Augmented Dragon), in essence making it so that it was an applicable target for spells that specifically targeted Undead and spells that specifically targeted Dragons, instead of being an applicable target only for spells that would target Undead.

The actual stats and effects of templates such as Zombie or Skeleton would not change at all, though creatures that have the Undead type without an augmented subtype (such as a Mohrg) would need to be given one (in this case, probably Monstrous Humanoid). That is to say, the Mohrg would be Monstrous Humanoid (Undead) instead of Undead.

[MeklorIlavator]

It does mean that a zombie elf takes extra damage from a ranger with favored enemy: elf.

Yep, though here's a thought: Does Favored enemy stack? It the ranger also had favored enemy: Undead?

Maybe there just shouldn't be favored enemy undead if you go that route.

[Yakk]

So, Undead becomes a subtype that replaces every feature of the base type, except the "flag" of being that type?

That seems somewhat ... cludgy.

[Jasdoif]

Well, I was bored, so I typed up a list for the subtype traits. Not exactly the same as the Undead type, I removed those I felt were purely there as "basics for any type":

All hit dice become 12-diced, even those gained from class levels.
No Constitution score.
Immune to all mind-affecting effects.
Immune to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects.
Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, energy drain, fatigue effects, or exhaustion effects.
Cannot recover damage through rest.
Immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save, unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless.
Uses its Charisma modifier on Concentration checks.
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but is immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points or less.
Not affected by raise dead or reincarnate effects.
Resurrection and true resurrection effects restore the creature to its living form (ie, they lose the undead subtype).
No longer breathe, eat or sleep.



The actual stats and effects of templates such as Zombie or Skeleton would not change at all....They would retain the BAB and saves of their type, however. Unless the subtype alters these as well. They would retain skill points too, if they weren't mindless.


Yep, though here's a thought: Does Favored enemy stack? It the ranger also had favored enemy: Undead?No. This is mentioned in Favored Enemy's description; you only get the best one.

[Fax Celestis]

Why would it replace every feature? If I were to do it, I'd say that it retains BAB and saves of the original type, it's HD increase to d12, becomes mindless unless otherwise specified (losing feats and skills), and gains the other Undead traits (no need to eat, sleep, breathe, immune to crits, etc.)

[The Gilded Duke]

Would making something undead replace the old subtypes, or just add to them?

Mainly comes up with things like Fire Giants

Right now a Fire Giant goes from Giant (Fire) to Undead (Fire), would it change to Giant (Undead), or Giant (Undead, Fire).

Also if it replaced subtypes it would really mess with aquatic things.
(Zombie Sharks taking penalties when in water)

Otherwise I do not see a problem with it.

[Fax Celestis]

[list] All hit dice become 12-diced, even those gained from class levels. Not true. Mindless undead lose class levels.

They would retain the BAB and saves of their type, however. Unless the subtype alters these as well. They would retain skill points too, if they weren't mindless. That's my opinion too.

[Jasdoif]

Not true. Mindless undead lose class levels.I look at it like this: If they don't have class levels, they don't have the corresponding hit dice to make 12-sided.

[Fax Celestis]

Would making something undead replace the old subtypes, or just add to them?

Mainly comes up with things like Fire Giants

Right now a Fire Giant goes from Giant (Fire) to Undead (Fire), would it change to Giant (Undead), or Giant (Undead, Fire).

Also if it replaced subtypes it would really mess with aquatic things.
(Zombie Sharks taking penalties when in water)

Otherwise I do not see a problem with it.

Giant (Undead, Fire), and you'd stipulate in the Aquatic Subtype what to do with an aquatic undead.

[Jasdoif]

It's worth noting that most undead will become more dangerous in combat. Most types have a better BAB progression or Fort/Reflex saves, and the immunity to mind-affecting effects trumps the majority of effects that allow a Will save.

[Yakk]

So now you are saying that a Zombie/Skeleton dragon does change, quite massively, under this proposal?

*sigh*. Make up your mind.

BTW, the Undead subtype should give darkvision.

Here are dragon features:


eatures

A dragon has the following features.

* 12-sided Hit Dice.
* Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter).
* Good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves.
* Skill points equal to (6 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.

Traits

A dragon possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in the description of a particular kind).

* Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision.
* Immunity to magic sleep effects and paralysis effects.
* Proficient with its natural weapons only unless humanoid in form (or capable of assuming humanoid form), in which case proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
* Proficient with no armor.
* Dragons eat, sleep, and breathe.

Those are two changes in the stats of our Zombie Dragon.

So a Young Adult Black Dragon:
32d12 HD.
+16 additional BaB
+6 additional Fort/Reflex saves at the least (do post-20 HD monsters use epic saves or continue the standard progression? I forgot...)

There may be other effects that leak in... but I can't find many. Some creatures might become immune to being stunned when zombified.

[Thrawn183]

The real question, I'd say, is whether or not undead creatures have more in common with other undead creatures or creatures of their original type?

Example 1) So if you saw a Zombie Dragon/Dragon Zombie would you look at it and say, "Oooo its a zombie, don't use poison." Or would you say, "Its a dragon, X" (Where X is what you would normally say upon running into a dragon, I kinda drew a blank)

Personally I would advise against changing undead to a subtype. I think it diminishes just how drastic the changes something undergoes are when it becomes undead.

[Jasdoif]

So a Young Adult Black Dragon:
32d12 HD.
+16 additional BaB
+6 additional Fort/Reflex saves at the least (do post-20 HD monsters use epic saves or continue the standard progression? I forgot...)They use the epic progression for BAB and saves past 20HD.

The skeleton and zombie templates state they can't be made with animate dead if the final creature would have more then 20HD though, so it may not matter here.

[Golthur]

I'd think there'd be special rules for BAB and save progressions for mindless undead.

I can see an intelligent undead dragon maintaining it's full BAB and Reflex save, but a zombie?

[brian c]

So, back to the original question: undead as a subtype: yea or nay?

Yea. Also, I'm in favor of removing undead from the Favored Enemy list completely if you do this. Basically, if you know how to hit humans better, all of the vital organs are in the same place (basically) for an humanoid (human, undead) so you should be able to hit them just as well. I suppose you'd have to define what the favored enemy bonus really comes from.

[Golthur]

Yea. Also, I'm in favor of removing undead from the Favored Enemy list completely if you do this. Basically, if you know how to hit humans better, all of the vital organs are in the same place (basically) for an humanoid (human, undead) so you should be able to hit them just as well. I suppose you'd have to define what the favored enemy bonus really comes from.

OK, but does it matter to a dead man if you stab him through the lung? Hitting a vital organ on an undead (with the notable exception of the vampire) is a waste of effort.

[Jasdoif]

OK, but does it matter to a dead man if you stab him through the lung? Hitting a vital organ on an undead (with the notable exception of the vampire) is a waste of effort.This brings up an interesting question: How does a ranger with Favored Enemy (undead) get that bonus on damage rolls?

[ArmorArmadillo]

This brings up an interesting question: How does a ranger with Favored Enemy (undead) get that bonus on damage rolls?

It's hard to rationalize in the same way as humans because Undead don't actually exist and there is no biological/physical reason that can be given for why they exist, and thus nothing can be given as to what kills them.

I would base it off saying that whatever kills the undead, Rangers know how to do it better. I.E if breaking a skeleton's bones hurts him, he is well practiced in hitting the bones so as to destroy them.


As for Undead being a type, I think they meet the criteria of being different enough from the original thing that they qualify as a different type. It is an oddity in that it's the only "Acquired" type. I think it'd be possible to change, but the subtype would carry so many exceptions to the rules of the original type that it kind of defeats the purpose.

[namo]

This brings up an interesting question: How does a ranger with Favored Enemy (undead) get that bonus on damage rolls?

They transform their hate/xenophobia into sheer physical power. Like I saw someone sum it up the other day : Rangers are the ultimate racists/specie-ists.

[Devils_Advocate]

Yep, though here's a thought: Does Favored enemy stack?
No, it explicitly doesn't.


If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger’s bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher.
(From the Favored Enemy section of the Ranger class description)

This is already covered because there are a few creatures that fall into more than one Favored Enemy category even in the core rules (e.g. devils, aquatic elves).

[Yakk]

They use the epic progression for BAB and saves past 20HD.

The skeleton and zombie templates state they can't be made with animate dead if the final creature would have more then 20HD though, so it may not matter here.

So only up to +10 BaB and +6 saves.

That's a significant change.

[Merlin the Tuna]

I've got a red flag to raise, and it's not an unexpected one.

To use an earlier example... Polymorph allows transforming into a Dragon, but not Undead. Thus, changing Undead (Augmented Dragon) into Dragon (Undead) allows transforming into a Draco-Zombo.

Polymorph mucking up the world. Who'd have imagined it. *Cough*

[Matthew]

This brings up an interesting question: How does a ranger with Favored Enemy (undead) get that bonus on damage rolls?

How does he get a Bonus on any other Type? It's not like he knows more about the vulnerabilities of a Human than a Fighter, for instance (unless we assume that Fighters are not trained to kill people efficiently). Just a game mechanic, it used to be as a result of a kind of 'Rage' or 'Hatred'.

[Fax Celestis]

How does he get a Bonus on any other Type? It's not like he knows more about the vulnerabilities of a Human than a Fighter, for instance (unless we assume that Fighters are not trained to kill people efficiently). Just a game mechanic, it used to be as a result of a kind of 'Rage' or 'Hatred'.

Right. In those days, Batman was a ranger, not a wizard.


I've got a red flag to raise, and it's not an unexpected one.

To use an earlier example... Polymorph allows transforming into a Dragon, but not Undead. Thus, changing Undead (Augmented Dragon) into Dragon (Undead) allows transforming into a Draco-Zombo.

Polymorph mucking up the world. Who'd have imagined it. *Cough*

"Polymorph is even more broken than normal" is not an excuse. Otherwise, we'd have no more MMs.

[Jasdoif]

How does he get a Bonus on any other Type? It's not like he knows more about the vulnerabilities of a Human than a Fighter, for instance (unless we assume that Fighters are not trained to kill people efficiently). Just a game mechanic, it used to be as a result of a kind of 'Rage' or 'Hatred'.See, I always thought it was just bonus precision damage from some inexplicable source. But undead are immune to a lot of (if not all) precision damage...which is where I got confused.

[brian c]

How does he get a Bonus on any other Type? It's not like he knows more about the vulnerabilities of a Human than a Fighter, for instance (unless we assume that Fighters are not trained to kill people efficiently). Just a game mechanic, it used to be as a result of a kind of 'Rage' or 'Hatred'.

So then the question is: if a ranger hates goblins, does that mean he also hates zombie goblins, and gets the same bonuses? Or does he have to hate zombies, in which case he gets bonuses against zombie goblins, zombie elves and zombie orcs, even though he loves elves?

I would let rangers pick XX(Undead) as a favored enemy, regardless of type. If you pick that, you get bonuses against anything with the Undead subtype. Also, and this is just me, but I would let it stack if you also have FE for the type. If you hate Goblins and you hate zombies, wouldn't you really hate a zombie goblin?

(slightly not the same topic, but why do the favored enemy bonuses increase? Do you hate elves more and more as you get XP? And at level 6, you start hating dwarves too?)

[Indon]

Speaking of zombie elves, you cast Charm Person on an Elven undead. Its' type is Humanoid (Elven, Undead), and so it's immune by virtue of its' elven subtype?

Alternately, you cast Charm Person on a normal undead. It will be affected. Or do creatures still pick up the undead mind-affecting power immunity?

[Fax Celestis]

Speaking of zombie elves, you cast Charm Person on an Elven undead. Its' type is Humanoid (Elven, Undead), and so it's immune by virtue of its' elven subtype? No, it's immune by virtue of its Undead subtype.


Alternately, you cast Charm Person on a normal undead. It will be affected. Or do creatures still pick up the undead mind-affecting power immunity?

That would be the idea.

[ArmorArmadillo]

They transform their hate/xenophobia into sheer physical power. Like I saw someone sum it up the other day : Rangers are the ultimate racists/specie-ists.
Favored Enemy has nothing intrinsically to do with hate. Often rangers have backstories of great wronging and racial hatred, but it's not inherent.
A hunter ranger (Favored Enemy (Animal)) probably doesn't hate rabbits, he's just better at hunting them.
And hating someone doesn't make you better at following their tracks.

Besides, if a fighter had the same backstory as a ranger who lost his family to Orcs, he wouldn't get any bonus damage no matter how much he hated them.

[Beren One-Hand]

See, I always thought it was just bonus precision damage from some inexplicable source. But undead are immune to a lot of (if not all) precision damage...which is where I got confused.

You're partially correct. In 3.0 it was precision damage (complete with the 30' range limit and not affecting those immune to crits) but they removed that portion for 3.5

[Jasdoif]

Interesting.



Well, I was...really bored, again. So I made a table for the general BAB/Fort/Reflex/Will bonuses and skill points of types. To see which types get how much better with Undead as a subtype.

For reference, the existing Undead type would be listed as Poor BAB, Poor Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will, and 4 + Int skills.

{table=head]Type|BAB|Fort|Reflex|Will|Skills
Aberration|Mid|Poor|Poor|Good|2+Int
Animal|Mid|Good|Good|Poor|2+Int
Construct|Mid|Poor|Poor|Poor|2+Int
Dragon|Good|Good|Good|Good|6+Int
Elemental|Mid|(Varies)|(Varies)|Poor|2+Int
Fey|Poor|Poor|Good|Good|6+Int
Giant|Mid|Good|Poor|Poor|2+Int
Humanoid|Mid|Poor|Good|Poor|2+Int
Magical Beast|Good|Good|Good|Poor|2+Int
Monstrous Humanoid|Good|Poor|Good|Good|2+Int
Ooze|Mid|Poor|Poor|Poor|2+Int
Outsider|Good|Good|Good|Good|8+Int
Plant|Mid|Good|Poor|Poor|2+Int
Vermin|Mid|Good|Poor|Poor|2+Int[/table]

Aberration is the closest to Undead, so it'd make a good default for undead creatures if a more appropriate type can't be determined/decided. Conveniently, it's also thematically appropriate.


Also, it turns out that the Will save does have its use, as some undead-only save-or-die effects (disruption effects, undeath to death) allow Will saves.

[Merlin the Tuna]

"Polymorph is even more broken than normal" is not an excuse. Otherwise, we'd have no more MMs.I'm not saying it's a bad idea -- quite the opposite, actually. And there's no way I'd allow the core Polymorph spells in a game I DM. I'm just pointing it out because it's something that bears mentioning.