You would keep the stat modifiers, no reason to track which stats had been increased during the leveling process for all intents and purposes they are the creatures original stats, and yea so if you animate an elite creature you get a bigger and better version, elite creatures tend to be rare.. I hardly see a problem with it. raising your fallen barbarian companion can be a nice way to get a high quality zombie on the cheap.
Indeed it is. :o
Then again, if you're a competent necromancer, you may want to discuss an insurance policy with your barbarian friend before he croaks. Coming back to life as a mummy or other powerful undead creature who retains their sentient mind could be very appealing to a barbarian. Craft him a ring of fire resistance 30 and let him enjoy being the barbarian who returned from the grave with a vengeance! :D
Also, cohorts and animal companions are useful targets for animate dead as well. If your cohort or whatever doesn't want to come back to life (say he likes it in heaven, 'cause heaven is nice like that), you can throw his body back onto the front lines to take one for the team. It's not like he's using that seemingly worthless lump of flesh (unless you have the option to graft body parts to other creatures, in which case he might have a few organs you can donate to little Suzie with the bad kidneys in the town you saved).
In fact, if you're a neutral cleric of the animal domain, if your animal companion snuffs it, raise it as an undead minion and then call forth a new animal companion as normal.
Ho boy, I can only imagine the sheer amount of rage that's going to come this way at the idea of animating animal companions. You just wait, somebody is going to begin shouting about how you don't get an animal companion, or the gods hate you because they do, or why a neutral or evil cleric would never ever think of raising the spiritless husk of his formerly loyal companion as a taxidermy project with attitude.
Sorry dude, but the base creature is the base creature.
Do you know where I can find out what the definition of 'base creature' is? I can't see it written anywhere, and without that all the RAW in the template itself are based on RAI on the meaning of 'base creature'. I can see that your contention is that the base creature is (for example) 'dwarf fighter 3/expert 1', whereas I'm wondering whether the base creature is 'humanoid (dwarf)'.
On that basis an elf zombie would, for example, be proficient with longbows, but a human zombie would not, regardless of its class before death. Which is why (I would assume) there is no 'class' line in the zombie's entry in the Bestiary--because it has no class hit dice, and without them, how does it gain access to class-based features like weapon proficiencies?
I agree that based on the RAI of the 'base creature' being a dwarf fighter 3/expert 1 that the RAW zombie version of the creature will retain proficiency with all martial weapons. I'm just not positive that's how it works.
Let me put it this way. You have a dryad. The dryad is proficient with the following:
- "all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry"
- "whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, or by character class. Fey not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Fey are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor"
Both of those are thanks to being a fey; see p308 of the Bestiary.
So our dryad is proficient with all simple weapons and no armour (it wears no armour in its Bestiary entry, and only wields a dagger).
Now let's add a level of rogue.
The dryad is now proficient with "all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword...[and] light armor, but not with shields". (Core Rulebook, p68)
Then the dryad dies a horrible death. It's raised as a zombie. Is the 'base creature' the dryad, or the dryad with a level of rogue?
###
In my 3.5 Monster Manual, the human zombie is listed as a 'Human Commoner Zombie'. That's pretty clear evidence that the class is included as part of the 'base creature' in that instance. But is it the same in Pathfinder?
###
As additional, totally circumstantial evidence, I offer the fact that the language is consistent between 'base creature' and 'creature type', but that 'class features' are precisely that--class features.
###
When it comes down to it, a zombie is a mindless corpse animated by dark magics--so I'm happy for it to lose all its class-based proficiencies (including the added ability scores from gaining levels) and have 'base creature' refer to the creature type for the 0HD races. Until and unless I see something ruling differently from an official source, that's the interpretation I'll choose to make in my games. YMMV, and that's okay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been over this before, but I'll do it again since you seem honestly curious.
Do you know where I can find out what the definition of 'base creature' is? I can't see it written anywhere, and without that all the RAW in the template itself are based on RAI on the meaning of 'base creature'. I can see that your contention is that the base creature is (for example) 'dwarf fighter 3/expert 1', whereas I'm wondering whether the base creature is 'humanoid (dwarf)'.
A template is a set of rules that you apply to a monster to transform it into a different monster. All templates give precise directions on how to change a monster's statistics to transform it into the new monster.Acquired Templates: Some templates, like the lich, are the results of a creature's choice and desire to transform. Others, like the ghost template, are the result of an external force acting upon a creature (for example, when a tormented person dies and becomes a ghost). Yet in both cases, the template changed a creature well after its birth or creation—these types are called “acquired templates,” and can be added to a creature at any time during its existance.
Inherited Templates: Some templates, such as the half-dragon and half-fiend templates, are part of a creature from the beginning of its existence. Creatures are born or created with these templates already in place, and have never known life without them. These types of templates are called “inherited templates.”
This explains how templates work. Notice that it says templates give "precise directions". You only change what the template tells you to change, and you change it how the template tells you to.
Now...
“Zombie” is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature (other than an undead), referred to hereafter as the base creature.
Referred to hereafter as the base creature. In other words, the only time "base creature" is used is when noting the creature you are applying the template to. A creature's statistics include class levels.
Compare to...
“Vampire” is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature with 5 or more Hit Dice (referred to hereafter as the base creature). Most vampires were once humanoids, fey, or monstrous humanoids. A vampire uses the base creature's stats and abilities except as noted here.
“Graveknight” is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature with 5 or more Hit Dice (referred to hereafter as the base creature). Most graveknights were once humanoids or monstrous humanoids. A graveknight uses the base creature’s statistics and abilities except as noted here.
In all cases it refers to the base creature. There is not a template that does not refer to the base creature. Even templates that do not modify class HD at all.
In the case of both the Vampire and Grave Knight it does not mention anything about weapon proficiencies, and they are both legal templates for several creatures that have 5+ HD without having class levels (such as Hill giants). It merely notes where they gain or adjust natural weapons as appropriate. Skeletons and zombies both note that they retain all weapon proficiencies of the base creature.
In short, the "base creature" is whatever you are applying the template to. That includes all their statistics, class levels, and so forth. In the case of the zombie and skeleton templates, it specifically tells you to remove their class HD and class features, except for weapon proficiencies - it specifically calls out that they retain weapon proficiencies. It is not a matter of it being due to type or Hit Dice. If the base creature had proficiency with a weapon, so does the zombie or skeleton version (ergo if you turn a giant with the martial weapon proficiency feat for the greatsword the skeleton or zombie giant will be able to wield greatswords, and a former bard zombie can wield a whip).
The problem is people are taking "base creature" and trying to make it out like it means "the creature minus anything derived from additional hit dice, class levels, or anything it wasn't conceivably born with", when it doesn't suggest any of that. It merely calls out that when it says "base creature" that it is referring to whatever you are applying the template to, and the template notes any important details that need to be changed and any important details for what it specially retains (for example even though it loses all its feats, a giant with the greatsword proficiency feat still retains the proficiency for that weapon as a zombie, despite having lost the feat).
Does this help at all?
Seriously.
The templates are for use by the DM, easy of use. So they can make up appropriate monsters quickly and easily. Given that, the rules don't really mean anything as they are all up to DM fiat. The PC trying to say their newly created zombie gets a free +5 to a stat because it had some fluffy background of being a 20th level corpse before being zombied should be smacked around with the rule book.
Exactly where do you think I said that? Exactly where would a PC GET that? You can't BUY that with starting cash, so even with premade PCs at an above average level, the GM is ultimately the guy he has to get his corpses from. Exactly at what point do you think that I was saying a PC can go out and pickup a random level 20 deadguy's body to get a zombie with a +5 strength (assuming of course not only was he level 20 but he also put all his stat boosts into Strength or Dexterity).
I didn't. I was discussing the rules. Yeah, go ahead and dismiss all the rules. I couldn't care less. Wanna know what? There are no rules. None of them. The rules are a LIE. They don't even exist because "it's all up to GM fiat". So if the rules don't matter, and you don't care, stop arguing stupid stuff at me. Stop spreading misinformation. A guy wanted to know, and I'm not going to lie to him.
Unfortunately, part of the rules that are normally the DMs domain were handed over to the PCs, some thought needs to be applied to that, which you seem to be vehemently against. These are the type of rules that get disallowed and modified in organized play. My points are made to make sure they stay balanced, not blindly handing away doubled stat bonuses because of some poor judgement in editing/copy&pasting. If you want to apply the bonus upfront and consider it part of the initial package, fine go ahead, just don't apply an additional set of ability bumps after the template is applied as it is already accounted for by the initial HD...Oh joy oh joy praise to the GM and smite...
It isn't smite the players, either you aren't thinking of how it can be abused or are too incompetent (seeing as you seem to want to get into aggressive wording and being a tool in a public forum) to see that it could be abused. Take your pick. Paizo has been trying to clean up things that were overpowered and caused problems, template have long been an issue. As such I'm more inclined to error on the less powerful version of anything that could be taken multiples ways. I'm not going to get dragged down into trollish name calling, nor am I going to try explain something that appears to be outside your tunnel vision. RAW and RAI aren't always the same. I'm okay with the attributes being included once, if when you are designing a creature you say RAW allows you to keep the bump and do another because of the undead HD I'm not okay with that. I've mentioned it several times, you seem to have ignored that and are intent on being, lacking a better term, a "jerk." Thanks for reminding me why I should never expect civil discussions on the internet, I'd forgotten apparently, silly me...
Check out Classic Horrors Revisted, on page 55. Zombie Lord is the equivalent to the Skeleton Champion (roughly), that might help someone's argument. In all honesty, I didn't want to read the bickering, so I'm trying to give a bit more definitive answers to someone who can use them so we reach a conclusion that I can read a tl;dr on.
It isn't smite the players, either you aren't thinking of how it can be abused or are too incompetent (seeing as you seem to want to get into aggressive wording and being a tool in a public forum) to see that it could be abused.
This isn't a matter of abuse. You would need no less than 8 class levels on an NPC to get a +1 to a particular stat. If the NPC is an NPC-classed character (and thus the 8 levels of NPC would have a low CR) he would barely break even with a PC-classed NPC in terms of stats. If you had a PC-classed character, you'd need at least 24 levels of an NPC class to get a zombie with another +3 to hit and damage.
It's not that I am not thinking of how it can be abused. I have thought of how it can be abused and realized it cannot. It's a non issue. It requires absolutely extreme situations set up by the GM to get an incredibly increase in ability. If the NPC had a PC class and 24 levels of an NPC class, his CR is at least in the teens, which means that a 2HD zombie with an extra +3 to hit and damage isn't going to matter at all against things you are encountering.
Take your pick. Paizo has been trying to clean up things that were overpowered and caused problems, template have long been an issue. As such I'm more inclined to error on the less powerful version of anything that could be taken multiples ways. I'm not going to get dragged down into trollish name calling, nor am I going to try explain something that appears to be outside your tunnel vision.
I didn't call anyone names. I do believe I was very recently issued a loaded statement that suggested either if I was not ignorant then I was incompetent. I cannot help that instead of providing a viable argument you are raging, especially when I have only discussed the facts and asked you to explain your position (which of course you didn't and merely raged).
RAW and RAI aren't always the same. I'm okay with the attributes being included once, if when you are designing a creature you say RAW allows you to keep the bump and do another because of the undead HD I'm not okay with that.
If you take a hydra and advance it 12 hit dice (providing +3 stat points) and then animate it, it retains those +3 stat points. If it then gains an additional +1 stat point because of the bonus HD that it receives as a zombie (a non-issue with humanoids) then that is neither very powerful nor unexpected.
I really don't care if you are "OK" with that. There's a lot in the Pathfinder system I'm not "OK" with, especially in the new splat-books. I can either deal with it, or I can house rule it, but it is what it is. The OP asked on the Rules Questions about a rule, and I have answered it.
House rule it or make an argument. Raging gets no one anywhere unless you are a barbarian. Even then it only gets you a +2 to hit and +3 to damage, and serves no purpose in a social discussion.
I've mentioned it several times, you seem to have ignored that and are intent on being, lacking a better term, a "jerk." Thanks for reminding me why I should never expect civil discussions on the internet, I'd forgotten apparently, silly me...
I love how I'm being a "jerk" when all I have done is actually answer the OP's question, or explain the rules after people randomly pop up and say "That's not how it works" without and grounds to do so. I love how I'm a "jerk" when I haven't called you or anyone else names, and yet am accused of doing so. I love that because I do not agree with you, and actually bother to A) explain my position, and B) point out logical inconsistencies with your position, that I am being a jerk.
Also, let me help you. If being sarcastic as a means of drawing attention to a point is an overly "jerk" move, then I openly accept this jerk move and you can shift my alignment closer to Lawful Jerk, because I really do not love it.