4th Ed Design Article: The Zombie

[DSCrankshaw]

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.

The term they're using is defenses. Spells and the like now get rolls to beat defenses, as opposed to the defender rolling saves. Like Star Wars Saga Edition uses. I haven't played it myself, but most people who have seem to like it.

And I'm not really concerned about the zombie template going away. Templates are a good idea in theory, but can be needlessly complicated in practice. It's basically an exercise in building a character of the right level, and then adding a whole other level of complication on top of that. Sure, it'd be a loss if lich or vampire templates went away, those are major villains you want some detail for. I can accept zombies just being an entry in the monster manual.

[Orzel]

The more I think about it, the more not having a zombie template isn't bad. In my current game, a zombie is a body soaked in positive or negative energy. To kill them, you have to separate the energy into enough pieces that the zombie doesn't have enough to move. this is done by destroying the brain (where most of the energy lies) and blasting/smashing/chopping the zombie into pieces. So human and elf zombie where the same. The issues came when we met winged and tailed zombies.

[vegetalss4]

I don't like this very much. This is all implications that zombies rely on what's inside them instead of just bones and muscles to scoot around. In the D&D I know, you don't kill a zombie by putting a hole in it's head, you just break up it's body. Also, a lot of that article seems to imply the zombies of D&D are going to be like the zombies of the movies, where the zombies of the movies are really more like mindless ghouls. That is an aspect of movies that bugs me, I don't want it at my table.

i agree with this 100%
or do you say QFT? i dont really know
EDIT: that was before i read Orzels post now im not so sure anymore

[appending_doom]

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.

Elves are fragile because their constitution is low; once this is removed (by dint of them being undead), you've got a "fast" zombie compared to a "strong" zombie, something you can decide to do with a second of work.

Zombies lose special attacks, special qualities, racial abilities, skill points, feats, and mental ability scores. The only thing that differentiates them is the presence of gross physical characteristics, like wings and natural weapons; and Strength and Dexterity. I don't see enough of a difference between an elf corpse and orc corpse to make their zombie significantly different.

[UserClone]

Definitely not worth it, in my opinion, to bother with statting out a freakin' mook zombie every time you want/need one. Way better to just have the stats, and change the fluff up a bit. That IS what they did before the advent of Templates, after all.

[Logos7]

to be truthful , with no int score non intelligent undead ought to be stupider than movie zombies. This is where you get bs like the players saying "that zombie wont try to attack me unless someone told it to, and other DnDism's which is part of the reaon why i think in CoC they had to get Int of 3 and stuff"

If they can make my zombies act more like movie zombies( and hopefully the original kind leaving the fast new super smart zombie of todays flicks to the GHOUL hopefully) More Power To Them.

As for being insulting, honestly I think that half the DnD community has their panties in such a bunch, and the other half bunched in the exact opposite way that they cannot do anything without the "wah im offended syndrom" honestly it seems like it to me.

Also to the person who like rolling for saves, Have you ever dm cause when you'r dealing with mook armies, that static reflex defence looks preety damn temping. And Besides the active player rolling the dice i thought made a lot of sense.(FIREBALL! Just a second, *The Tumble of maddly rolling dice* Save, Fail, Fail, Fail , Fail, Save, Fail, Fail , Fail , Fail, Fail okay now what do you? FIREBALL AGAIN, AGAIN , AGAIN)

[Renegade Paladin]

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.

Even a... There are two pages of sample zombies in the Monster Manual.

[Fax Celestis]

Even a... There are two pages of sample zombies in the Monster Manual.

...of creatures that only appear within the MM. What if I want a zombie greenspawn zealot? I've got to spend twenty minutes figuring out all that crap when, with the nontemplate version, I can grab the "advanced" version and describe it as a rotting anthropomorphic alligator in full-plate.

[Renegade Paladin]

If you want a zombie greenspawn zealot, you apply the zombie template to a greenspawn zealot. It isn't all that much paperwork next to, I don't know, everything else a DM has to do in any case to prepare for a campaign. Alternatively, you can take the sample human zombie and describe it as a rotting anthropomorphic alligator in full plate.

[Fax Celestis]

And I try to prepare like any other DM does. But there are instances when the PCs do something I was completely unprepared for--or not planning on preparing for another three or four sessions--and I have to make things up on the fly. In such an instance, the non-template format is vastly superior in usefulness to that of a template format. In an instance where I can readily prepare, the template is more accurate and is still useful, but the non-template format does not reduce in value at all--and actually cuts down on my preparation time, leaving me with either more free time on my hands or the ability to focus on other things that the PCs may run into.

[Zeal]

Personally, I don't mind the change. I always wanted to use Zombies, but they just didn't seem powerful enough to pose much of a threat, I mean, their HP was measly, at best. Also, Zombie isn't a template, that's not a huge deal for me, as long as the zombies are decently tough and lumbering, a Zombie template for 4e would be easy enough to put together. That being said, I really hope templates stay in.

[Jack Mann]

To be honest, if I wanted to do a greenspawn zealot zombie, I'd just use the commoner zombie with some hit dice slapped on. It's not that templates are complicated, it's just that zombies aren't worth the effort. The template changes most of the creature's mechanics anyway. Nearly everything from the original creature is lost, so why bother with a template? It's like a vampire, where the starting creature makes a great difference in the zombie's abilities.

[Binary Stars]

I, for one, mostly like this one. If you don't, just take a skeleton and pretend it still has some chunks of flesh on it still, slower/clumsier, call it a "Zombie", etc. Bam!

[Edea]

This makes me want to break out The Cranberries.

[Solo]

*takes a deep breath*

THIS IS SPARTA!

No,

THIS IS FOURTH EDITION!

[Helgraf]

At what point does getting hit for five times your hit point not kill you?

I suspect this was meant to read "5 x your Constitution stat" - not the bonus, mind you, the actual Con Score.

[Person_Man]

I'm guessing that they're getting rid of templates and level adjustment all together. And I say good riddance. They've been very clear that material in the MM is meant for monsters/enemies, not PCs. Instead, they'll publish separate rules for PCs who want to play non-standard races. IMO, this is a much better way of going about it.

Building encounters will be much faster and easier for DMs. Building a PC will be much easier and balance issues will be reduced (i.e., you can have play something that would normally be a high LA race but still be a full caster, without being totally nerfed). The down side is if WotC doesn't publish rules for a race that you want to play, then you have to home brew them. And I'm fine with that.

[Merlin the Tuna]

I'm guessing that they're getting rid of templates and level adjustment all together.

The Death Knight article mentions that that's template material, not monster material, so templates are still around. I'll be in favor of that if the "actually differentiating melee abilities" thing pans out nicely; my problem with the Zombie template is just that the thing doesn't tend to pay off.

A good template takes the core monster and builds on it. The Zombie template takes a monster a strips away just about everything. And then it takes another monster and strips away just about everything so that it looks almost exactly like the first monster post-zombification. When you have a template that takes different monsters and boils them down into simpler, nearly identical monsters, it's really not very useful as a template.

[Dausuul]

I think the best approach would be to say that all zombies of a given size use the same basic stats, but then allow certain characteristics to carry over from the base creature. For instance, a zombie wyvern would be a Large zombie with a fly speed. No calculating stats, no crunching numbers, just take the basic zombie and slap on wings--sort of a "template lite."

[Merlin the Tuna]

Since there seem to be so many people upset at the loss of the Zombie template, here's a rundown I did of the existing system over at ENWorld.

Rather than arguing the merits of a template versus the merits of a monster, let's actually look at the 3.5 Zombie template and compare two creatures to see what kind of difference you actually get out of the thing. Let's say we use an Elf and a Half-Orc.

Size and Type: Same for both creatures.
Hit Dice: Same for both creatures
Speed: Same for both creatures
Armor Class: Natural armor is the same for both creatures.
Base Attack: Based off of HD, and therefore is the same for both creatures.
Attacks: Same for both creatures, except for Elven weapon proficiencies.
Special Attacks: None for both.
Special Qualities: Hey look, this isn't even described clearly. Appears to be the same for both creatures.
Saves: Same for both creatures.
Abilities: 4 of them are the same for both creatures. The Half Orc has 2 more Str than the Elf, and the Elf has 2 more Dex.
Skills: None for both.
Feats: Just Toughness for both.
Alignment: Same for both creatures.

Result: The only meaningful difference between the graceful elf becoming a zombie and the brutish, boorish half-orc becoming a zombie in 3.5 are their Str and Dex scores, and even those are barely different.

The thing about the zombie template is that it really isn't that useful -- it doesn't adjust monster properties as most templates do, it simply sets them to the same value every time, whether this means dumping special attacks and qualities, hard-coding 4 of the 6 ability scores, dropping feats, or eliminating skills. This is hardly the only example. A Zombie Gnome is a Zombie Halfling with 2 less Dex and no bonus to thrown weapons. A Zombie Dwarf is a Zombie Human with Dwarven Waraxe proficiency and +1 to attack versus orcs and goblinoids. If you decide that a Warforged has a sufficiently skeletal structure, you can make a Zombie Warforged that's exactly the same as the Zombie Human except for his built-in armor. (And then what do you do if he took the Adamantine/Mithral Body feats?)

Zombies are pretty much the same, even when you do use the template. That's kind of iconic for zombies anyway -- they're faceless (literally, sometimes) members of a mob, utterly unremarkable from each other. The template further muddles things by not being very clear what gets retained and what gets dumped in the infamous catch-all category that is "Special Qualities."

Would a zombie template be useful? Possibly, though not likely. Is the current one useful? Not so much.

Try it with a Wyvern and a Minotaur. Same size, same hit dice. Totally different zombies.

Both are in the SRD, and they don't have the same hit dice. Even with that, I wouldn't say they're totally different zombies.

Size and Type: Same for both creatures.
Hit Dice: The wyvern's got 13 HP on the minotaur thanks to his 2 extra HD.
Speed: The Minotaur moves 30 ft per round, the Wyvern moves 20 feet per round, because actually trying to use Clumsy flight in battle isn't worth the trouble.
Armor Class: The Wyvern has 4 more natural armor than the Minotaur.
Attacks: Slam or gore at +10 for 1d8+5 for the Minotaur, Slam at +11 for 2d6+7 from the Wyvern. (Note that this damage appears to be incorrect -- it should be 1d8+5, just like the Minotaur's, going by the template's provided information. Hurrah for biffed stat blocks in core.) The Minotaur also has a greataxe listed, but eh, zombies with weapons? Lamesauce incarnate. The Minotaur also has 5 feet more reach.
Special Attacks: None for both.
Special Qualities: Exactly the same for both.
Saves: The Wyvern has +1 to its base Will save.
Abilities: Strength is 21 for both creatures, Dex is 10 for the Wyvern and 8 for the Minotaur. The other 4 are the same for both.
Skills: None for both.
Feats: Just Toughness for both.
Alignment: Same for both creatures.

So the Wyvern has a bit more HP, a bit more AC (unless you do, for some bizarre reason, go the equipment route for the Minotaur, in which case the ACs end up about the same), hits slightly more often for slightly more damage (maybe), has slightly better saves, and has one ability with a modifier one higher. It can fly in story mode, but it has slightly less reach and moves slightly slower in battle.

That to me does not say "totally different zombies." Rather it says "Zombie advanced 2 hit dice past other zombie," especially because the key remaining difference between the two -- flight -- can't actually be used in battle because of the ludicrous hassle involved. It further illustrates the point I made in the first place -- we took two completely different monsters, applied the template, and ended up with Mindless Bruiser 1 and Mindless Bruiser 2. Had I actually had to build these rather than pull the stat blocks from the SRD, I'd have been kicking myself in the teeth by the middle of the Wyvern's. It's really not worth the time, especially for a mook.

[Dausuul]

Since there seem to be so many people upset at the loss of the Zombie template, here's a rundown I did of the existing system over at ENWorld. [snip]

Yeah, this sums it up pretty well. There are other advantages to using a "standard zombie" rather than a template, too--like game balance. It's a lot easier to balance animate dead if you don't have to worry about the possibility that some monster will happen to interface perfectly with the zombie template to produce a super-zombie.

[my_evil_twin]

I like templates in general because they make monsters more interesting. The zombie template doesn't appeal to me because it doesn't make things more interesting, it provides a system for stripping away what's interesting about a monster until all that's left is its shambling corpse. It's just as well that they strip away everything but size (and, I hope, shape: quadruped zombies should probably have some difference from biped zombies) and save a lot of work.

[Khanderas]

No template = bad.
Slam = Unarmed attack, available only to monsters (this to keep seperate from PC's, specifically monk types).
Zombies now succeptable to crits = I don't like it. Dead tissue ignores stabbings in the lungs thankyouverymuch.

[Rockphed]

No template = bad.
Slam = Unarmed attack, available only to monsters (this to keep seperate from PC's, specifically monk types).
Zombies now succeptable to crits = I don't like it. Dead tissue ignores stabbings in the lungs thankyouverymuch.

But if you hack a zombie to pieces in the right places it will just fall apart.

And as Merlin the Tuna said, how does the zombie template actually help? In almost every case it churns out the same creature at any given size category. The only real differences are hit dice and speed. Even a fly speed doesn't help a zombie much.

[Fixer]

GAH! How come I can get on to my Gleemax account but D&D Insider doesn't recognize me? Aren't they supposed to be the same account?

I had the same problem with my account. You are not alone. I can log into my old D&D forums account, Gleemax, etc but Insider seems to have lost me.

[SpikeFightwicky]

All this means to me is that I have to homebrew a 'Voodoo' zombie, compared to now, where I have to homebrew a 'Romero' zombie.

Thing is, I like the Romero zombies more.

Also, what implications will this have to animated dead? Current zombies don't do anything beyond their simple orders, even after their master dies. Will current zombies roam free?

[Mike_Lemmer]

Also, what implications will this have to animated dead? Current zombies don't do anything beyond their simple orders, even after their master dies. Will current zombies roam free?

Yes, until a passing bard rebukes them into a dance brigade.

[Jack Mann]

"Back to back, belly to belly, I don't give a damn, 'cause I'm stone dead already..."

[SpikeFightwicky]

Yes, until a passing bard rebukes them into a dance brigade.

That bard character would be a real 'thriller'...

[Rex Blunder]

Zombies now succeptable to crits = I don't like it.

I dunno. My group was fighting undead last session. The barbarian kept rolling 20's with his warhammer, but being denied that x3 crit. I don't think that made the session MORE fun.

If crits were allowed on undead, I'm sure my DM could come up with flavorful crit descriptions that didn't break believeability. "You swing your hammer and totally pulverize the zombie's rib cage. Limbs fly everywhere." "The skeleton reaches for you, and your dagger hacks off its arm." "You shoot it in the head. Its head explodes."