4th Ed Design Article: The Zombie

[Thinker]

Okay, granted, but at that point, isn't forcing them to save vs. death a little cruel?

I'm pretty sure he meant five times HD

[Draz74]

You're all missing the most important bit. The article mentions that a zombie can still "take your head off with a vicious slam". This means that the zombie's attack is still a slam.

Now, nobody has ever given me a satisfactory answer to this question:

What in the name of $DEITY is a slam?

This would have been the perfect opportunity to fix this once and for all. How could they have screwed this up?

Yeah, that made me sad too.

[shadowdemon_lord]

Lets see, 5xHD. That means...5 HP's at level 1, 10 HP's at level 2, 15 at level 3 etc. I don't buy that for a second. The capability to deal damage scales much faster then that, practically every attack from a dedicated fighter would then provoke a roll, at every level. He talked about making the squishies squishier, basing it on HD also dosen't make sense.

[Jasdoif]

Now, nobody has ever given me a satisfactory answer to this question:

What in the name of $DEITY is a slam?

This would have been the perfect opportunity to fix this once and for all. How could they have screwed this up?

What makes you think there isn't going to be an elaboration on the subject in the MM? This was an article about zombies, not natural weapons.

[Machete]

From what I've been able to reason, a Slam is pretty much just throwing your torso at someone ala belly bump except with the full body.

Its just a semi-cool name for a really lame method of attack that takes no skill to use.

[Bardbarian]

Lets see, 5xHD. That means...5 HP's at level 1, 10 HP's at level 2, 15 at level 3 etc. I don't buy that for a second. The capability to deal damage scales much faster then that, practically every attack from a dedicated fighter would then provoke a roll, at every level. He talked about making the squishies squishier, basing it on HD also dosen't make sense.

--->I'm leaning towards him meaning HD type, based on the "squishy squishier" clause. Wizards save at d4 * 5 = 20 hp, Barbs at 60hp.

--->Lord Tataraus, you are not alone in your Gleemax plight.

[Tallis]

You're all missing the most important bit. The article mentions that a zombie can still "take your head off with a vicious slam". This means that the zombie's attack is still a slam.

Now, nobody has ever given me a satisfactory answer to this question:

What in the name of $DEITY is a slam?

This would have been the perfect opportunity to fix this once and for all. How could they have screwed this up?

Punch, kick, head-butt, etc.

I'm undecided about this. Not enough information...

[Tallis]

Lets see, 5xHD. That means...5 HP's at level 1, 10 HP's at level 2, 15 at level 3 etc. I don't buy that for a second. The capability to deal damage scales much faster then that, practically every attack from a dedicated fighter would then provoke a roll, at every level. He talked about making the squishies squishier, basing it on HD also dosen't make sense.

Except that wouldn't make the squishies squishier. They'd have to take more than their max hp (without con bonus) to ever have to save. At that point there is no point.
I'm gonna guess he meant hp/5. That would fit his description of the effect he's going for.

[Nowhere Girl]

Slam is an attack from EverQuest. Ogres, trolls and barbarians get it as racial abilities.

That's what zombies are doing.

[EvilElitest]

From what I've been able to reason, a Slam is pretty much just throwing your torso at someone ala belly bump except with the full body.

Its just a semi-cool name for a really lame method of attack that takes no skill to use.

IN my games, a same is ether a tackle, or a really tough but untrained punch
For vampires it is any attack, kick, punch, tackle whatnot
from,
EE

[Closet_Skeleton]

What!? Zombies aren't templates? What sort of idiocy is this?

They weren't templates in 3.0 and of cause earlier editions, so it's an idiocy that at least has precedence.

(I'm talking about classic zombies, not voodoo or similar ones which are closer to ghouls and spirit-wraiths)

Uhm, voodoo zombies are classic zombies. There's no other source for zombies. The european version, revanants, have some form of their original personality. A voodoo zombie is a mindless slave to an evil wizard, just like the D&D zombies.

Making D&D zombies closer to movie ones seems like a sell out to me. Or possibly just an ignorant designer messing with things beyond his ken because he thinks it's 'cool'.

If they make zombies into movie zombies but keep Gorgons as a stupid iron plated bull I'll have to bang my head against a wall at least once.

3.5 zombies are my favourite D&D ones, that DR 5/slashing really brings home the "must be hacked to pieces, it has no beating heart to pierce" thing.

[Ryshan Ynrith]

I always envisioned a slam as either a palm strike or a backhand-no real attempt to improve damage, just a lot of strength.

[Azerian Kelimon]

D'oh, while this was probably thought of as a nice idea, it's purely idiotic. Before I start on this, I should also tack on it that the tone of the article was pathetic, extremely patronizing. "Be thankful..."... PAH! give us the task of creating a new edition, and we'd do it better than them designers.

Now, onto the article. My beef with it is that, from what can be garnered from it, bread 'n butter zombies are now going to be massively wussy unless in hordes. In almost all movies, a single zombie is a pathetic piece of borsht. And it's only when there's seven gazillion zombies than the going gets tough. Which means, you'll have to drop 25 zombies per PC to make 'em a credible fight. That's really, really bad. Plus side is, this would mean reworking the CR system, which would be good.

[Orzel]

I'm iffy on these zombies.

I like the crit hit working on them because I liked zombies being dead stupid people than evil flesh constructs. Zombies not having a weak spot seemed stupid.

but not a template.

What the hobgoblin?

[Mewtarthio]

I always figured that a slam was just a big, heavy limb being swung.

[Draz74]

PAH! give us the task of creating a new edition, and we'd do it better than them designers.

Very true, except for the way we can rarely agree on anything. Anything at all. Heck, it's only things like "full casters are overpowered" that most of us can agree on.

[Azerian Kelimon]

And powergamer Monte Cook and crappist Jonathan Tweet agree mucho? Doubt it, considering one designed the BovD and the other one made the PHB. 'Nuff said.

[Cruiser1]

I don't like zombies not being a template. There should be a difference between a zombie created from big and muscled orc and from fragile elf. Otherwise, meh. Lots of talking about one creature.

I agree doing away with the Zombie template "in the name of simplicity" is a poor mechanic and akin to "dumbing down D&D". What's next, going back to Elf being a character class? I like the 3.5 Zombie, where they describe the template, but also give examples of various complete creatures for DM simplicity, such as Human Zombie, Bugbear Zombie, etc.

[Orzel]

I hope that they give the zombie enough mobility to dance...

you know where I'm going with this.

[Golthur]

Grumble, grumble...

Why is my Spidey Sense (tm) telling me that they're getting rid of templates as a whole because they're "too complicated"?

I'm not normally the type to be a grognard, but each new article I see makes me less happy about the new edition, not more.

As much as I like the occasional zombie apocalypse, it's not the default mode I want for zombies. Making them back into a regular monster from a template is just silly, and critical hits? Zombies should be practically immune to anything that harms vital organs. Why does someone who's already dead care if you stab them in the heart, or heck, even if you remove one of their arms (aside from not being able to use a two-handed sword anymore)?

Still trying to remain cautiously optimistic, but it's getting harder and harder...

[StickMan]

Zombie not a template madness I say, 3.5 I still play.

[Yvanehtnioj]

I like the new zombies. I like the warlocks. I tolerated the cosmology. But I can't STAND the removal of saving throws! Not cool, WoTC! Not! Cool! Saving throws have been a staple of D&D for almost its entire existence!

umm...saving throws are still in dnd at 4.0

there is even a "fourth" now. they made AC into the fourth. (the others three are still fort, ref, and will. btw, these three are WAY better than the saves from adnd. remember sav vs breath? sav vs rod/staves/wands?)

3 saves in 3.0 better than 5 saves in adnd.
so 4 in 4.0 wont be a bad thing, i think.

[ideasmith]

Concerning slams: 3e/3.5e apparently uses 'slam' to mean 'lethal natural weapon bludgeoning attack'.

[horseboy]

Romero or Russo zombies?

[Kyeudo]

I'd like to say that Zombie should remain a template. It was a step forward to make them a template. As for a retheme so that they can be used in groups, the CR system seems to be being reworked in that direction already, so I'm not surprised.

[Jack Mann]

Eh, I don't really worry about zombies not being templates. Zombies just never seemed worth templating to me, honestly. They're a mook undead. Sure, you can argue that elf zombies aren't worth as much as orc zombies, but then, why should anyone use elf zombies if they can make orc zombies? The only difference is the strength and dex scores.

So long as they have some way to customize and improve monsters, I don't see a problem. If you want to make a bugbear zombie, just add a couple of hit dice to toughen 'em up.

So they're going to be mob monsters. We already knew that there were going to be some monsters that would appear mostly in large numbers. Which undead did you think was going to be the undead mob? Liches? Zombies are the basic unit of the undead. Even beyond taking from the movies, it makes sense for them to attack in large numbers, if you're going to have monsters that do so.

It's not like zombies are some manner of super undead in 3.5. They're minions. That's their iconic use. The zombie minions at the heed of the wicked (or at least badly dressed) necromancer. Sure, they're strong, and good monsters for their CRs. But they're not a monster you generally expect to encounter as a single entity. Zombies and skeletons were made for the mob role.

And really, zombies just don't differ enough to need a template. Like I said, the only difference between a half-orc and an elf zombie is +2 Str, -2 Dex. I'd rather just fudge the description and use one set of mechanics. You want a tougher zombie, like a bugbear? Just advance the monster a few hit dice and call it a day. Want it larger? They've mentioned the medium zombie, so they'll probably have large, huge, and bigger versions (and probably smaller ones as well). Need it to fly? Give it a fly speed and describe wings.

Now, if vampires all have to use one monster entry, then I'll be annoyed.

[Renegade Paladin]

You make elf zombies because you have elf bodies.

Anyway, Wizards of the Coast continues to patronize and insult the intelligence of their customer base. Color me completely unsurprised, and also more than a trifle annoyed.

[Human Paragon 3]

What exactly is patronizing about making a zombie a normal monster and not a template? I'm not sure you know what patronizing actually means. Personally, I'm of the mind that zombies aren't worth templating, and I'm ALWAYS annoyed that there isn't a regular zombie I can just borrow the stats for. Even a sample zombie in the MM would have been useful.

[Azerian Kelimon]

That probably wasn't the patronizing bit, but rather the one that says, for example, "You should thank the merciful designers".

[Jack Mann]

All they meant was that they left players a defense against zombies. Of which they're playing up the horror and danger in the article in a slightly over-the-top way. Which is perfectly natural, given we're nearing Halloween. Of course they're trying to be "spooky." It's seasonal, like the flu.

umm...saving throws are still in dnd at 4.0

While there are saves, I don't believe you roll them. Now the three 3rd edition saves work more like AC, in that the opponent rolls to try and hit your save score. So, you don't roll a saving throw. The monster attacks your static save.