|
I'd be okay with that. That is clear in function.
I'm not sure what you don't think is clear at the moment.
You are asking for a rules change. You are also saying that something is unclear. Its a little blurry when you think one is happening and not the other.
The variant raises are out. They're not on the additional resources list.
You can make a skeleton/zombie, you just template the critter the dm has.
The monster goes poof at the end of the scenario.
|
I'd be okay with that. That is clear in function.
I'm not sure what you don't think is clear at the moment.
You are asking for a rules change. You are also saying that something is unclear. Its a little blurry when you think one is happening and not the other.
The variant raises are out. They're not on the additional resources list.
You can make a skeleton/zombie, you just template the critter the dm has.
The monster goes poof at the end of the scenario.
Simply, animate dead only says you can create skeletons and zombies.
It does not tell you how to do that.The rules for creating the undead are in the bestiary, which include variants. A variant skeleton is just that, a skeleton with an adjective. It IS a skeleton. And, you have access to those rules via the same way you have access to the rules to create any undead... they are in the entry for skeleton and zombie.
My point on clarity is only that you could read, create skelton to mean either, "use the skeleton template", or you could read it to mean "use a template for anything that is a skeleton." A super strict reading gets you the first. But, it is not illogical to think the second option could be true. It is through inference on past judgement that leads us to believe the first reading must be correct.
But, I digress... because the point of this thread isn't even about clarity. Clarity of AR, FAQ and RAW are just a sticking point with me. I apologize for any thread derailing I may have caused with issues of clarity.
It isn't even about if the we think it should be made explicitly legal... that is for the Devs to decide.
It is about whether or not we, the players and GMs, think the variants from bestiary 1 are worth making legal, would it help or hinder PFS, could it increase the fun of some players without being a hinderance to the game.
|
All variants?
Because some of the newer Bestiaries have some nasty undead available (see Necrocraft).
One problem with opening up all variants is that slowly, eventually, only the most powerful options will be the ones you see.
When your only option is Skeletons or Zombies, it becomes more about personal preference and animating whatever you encounter.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the argument against variant zombies/skeletons is that they're not explicitly called out in Additional Resources?
That's a plausible way of looking at it, but not the only plausible way.
- The Bestiary is not a core assumption for PCs.
- Both GtOP and Additional Resources do not mention Animate Dead.
- The Bestiary doesn't say anything about undead, or to what degree templated or variant monsters are available.
The strictest reading may be that zombies and skeletons aren't even available because they're not explicitly allowed by the AR. Also, the base monsters you look up to figure our your zombie's HD is also not explicitly allowed in AR. That's unreasonable, because neither are the critters summoned by Summon Monster, and everyone agrees that those spells function as expected.
So then, how do you read Animate Dead?
This spell turns corpses into undead skeletons or zombies that obey your spoken commands.
That's all the spell says about the nature of the skeletons and zombies you summon: they have to be undead. No Yellow Musk Zombies then.
So we basically have to go to the skeleton/zombie page in the Bestiary and take it from there, because this was all the information we're getting from Animate Dead. It expects you to figure out everything else (like HD!) from the Bestiary.
After introducing the basic skeleton, that entry in the Bestiary goes on to say:
Variant Skeletons
Numerous variant skeletons exist, such as those whose bones burn with an unending fire and those who drip with gore and reassemble themselves over time. Both of these variant skeletons can be created using animate dead, but they count as twice their normal number of Hit Dice per casting. Once controlled, they count normally against the controller's limit.
Zombies are slightly different:
Most zombies are created using animate dead. Such zombies are always of the standard type, unless the creator also casts haste or remove paralysis to create fast zombies, or contagion to create plague zombies.
I think as it is right now, you can make these variant undead, because there's nothing in either the GtOP or AR saying that you only use half the rules in the Bestiary for making zombies/skeletons.
The position that "you only get standard unless AR says otherwise" sounds like an unwritten rule, that may sound reasonable to some people, but ultimately, not actually written anywhere.
Allowing variant undead does put us on a slippery slope that leads into the gaping maws of necrocraft, so I do think it would be better if a firm line was drawn somewhere making it explicit what is and what isn't allowed, rather than this ambiguous situation.
Necrocraft might also be argued to be legal, but I think it would be better if they weren't. They're considerably more varied and complicated than the B1 variant undead, and that's something perhaps better not used in a 4-hour game with people you may have never met before.
Where would I draw the line? I'd go for allowing B1 variant zombies and skeletons, but not any others unless explicitly allowed. The B1 variants aren't complicated and they're a finite set. By restricting it to those we don't accidentally include something odd from a new book.
|
|
All variants?
Because some of the newer Bestiaries have some nasty undead available (see Necrocraft).
One problem with opening up all variants is that slowly, eventually, only the most powerful options will be the ones you see.
When your only option is Skeletons or Zombies, it becomes more about personal preference and animating whatever you encounter.
This is very true, and honestly, I do not think necrocraft fit the mould of PFS. Then again, that is just my opinion.
It is probably best, for PFS, to include only the variants for zombies and skeletons instead of rewriting the spell to include all the beasts which could be created with the spell. The only one I choose to call out as an exception is maybe exoskeletons. But, that's just because I like the idea of undead bugs. But, I think that is a discussion worth having.There are some skel/zom variants in Classic Horrors Revisited, which is already in the AR.
Though, the variants from Bestiary 1 are most likely enough.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@andreww: The entry for the Bestiary doesn't even say the monsters for Summon Monster are legal for summoning.It doesnt but the summon monster spells themselves are farily explicit about what is allowed.
Animate dead is fairly explicit as well. It allows you to create zombies and skeletons. What comes into question is, is a variant skeleton still a skeleton by that definition? The bestiary calls a bloody skeleton, a variant skeleton. So, it is a skeleton. Just as summon monster can summon an earth elemental or a fire elemental. They are both elementals, and summon monster says you can summon an elemental of a certain size.
There isn't actually a rule that states you can pick creatures out of the bestiary's just because a legal spell would allow you to.
A legal option in one book does not make legal any references it has to another book. (correct me if I'm wrong here, I haven't read every word written about PFS.)
Yet the bestiary's have always been assumed to be special in that regard, by both players and the design team.
If by casting summon monster, the rules for a creature become legal for me... then why wouldn't the rules for creating a skeleton become legal for someone casting animate dead? It follows logically, in both directions.
A slight derailment, but, also you can't summon elementals that are not fire, water, air or earth. That isn't explicit either, by RAW, AR or FAQ. It is hidden in a post from 2011 on the forums.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like my vl's phrase "yes, but". I find banning every questionable idea from pfs is gonna turn the organized play into a cookie cutter mold and stymie creativity. If we find ways to include the creative ideas while still making it managable and fun, will actually make pfs more attractive to a larger audience.
|
Personally, I like my vl's phrase "yes, but". I find banning every questionable idea from pfs is gonna turn the organized play into a cookie cutter mold and stymie creativity. If we find ways to include the creative ideas while still making it managable and fun, will actually make pfs more attractive to a larger audience.
I'm not sure this is correct.
I think you'll find that most GMs don't allow as much as PFS does.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like my vl's phrase "yes, but". I find banning every questionable idea from pfs is gonna turn the organized play into a cookie cutter mold and stymie creativity. If we find ways to include the creative ideas while still making it managable and fun, will actually make pfs more attractive to a larger audience.I'm not sure this is correct.
I think you'll find that most GMs don't allow as much as PFS does.
And that is the best thing about PFS. It is "big tent."
The leadership has been very good about allowing most options. They realize that the people who play this game have a wide variety of tastes and preferences.
Sarvai taeno and I play at tables together frequently. We both know that for the most part, our tastes and preferences for the game and what is allowed are very similar. But we also know that we have differing tastes as well. It is a pretty amazing thing about PFS that we can sit down at a table together and get to each enjoy characters that we like to play. That is really cool.
We wouldn't get that experience if everything he disliked was banned or if everything I disliked was banned.
That, I think, was the point of his post.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why aren't variant skeletons and zombies legal right now?
Because the bestiary text is not included in the AR! If that text was in the CRB then sure you could make the variants but it isn't so you can't.
That is true.
John Compton indicated he was open to hearing discussion of whether or not to change that.
I think opening up only the variants that are in the Bestiary seems reasonable.
|
|
Why aren't variant skeletons and zombies legal right now?
Because the bestiary text is not included in the AR! If that text was in the CRB then sure you could make the variants but it isn't so you can't.
This is not in dispute. John Compton has verified this much. So we don't need to keep reiterating this. We know what the rule is currently.
The discussion is revolving around whether this should change or not.
|
|
Actually it is in dispute. I was responding to a post arguing that the variants are legal right now.
A fairly well reasoned post on why, by RAW, it is actually reasonable to think they might be legal. Though, they aren't. I did disagree on his take on Necrocraft, though, they would not be legal by any reading when considering how PFS works.
But John Compton has said, "By a strict reading, they're not available in the organized play campaign.", which does, more or less, say they are not currently legal.So, for all intents and purposes, for this discussion, we must assume that currently the variants are explicitly not legal.
That being said, I thank everyone who has joined the discussion so far!
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After a reading of this thread, spell research, and research on somewhat related topics; here are my thoughts:
1.) Allow the use of Variant Undead (with the exception of Necrocraft) with the limitations of the variants costing twice the number of hit die against the number of hit die of undead that can be controlled. Having the variant undead is no more powerful than an animal companion or other summoned creatures.
2.) Allow a reasonable number of undead on the field at any one time. This is no different than a PC having a familiar, animal companion, mount, and pet during s scenario.
3.) Allow one undead still active at the end of a scenario to carry to the next. The current status of that undead at the end of the scenario must be documented on the chronicle and signed off by the table GM (if time sllows). If the player did not properly track the status of that undead creature, they will not be allowed to carry one over to the next scenario.
4.) If the table GM feels that, based on the characters of the other players at the table, the addition of the undead minions will cause any serious issues with the game (hogging the spotlight, pacing of the game, etc.); the table GM is allowed to enact reasonable limits (only one undead minion at one time for example) in order to prevent these issues from occurring.
These ideas are just that, ideas. The objective of this list is to hopefully present a foundation to allow the use of the variant undead as well as allow undead minions to carry over from one scenario to the next and provide reasonable guidelines for those options. Any constructive feedback is welcome as this is my first proposal in PFS and one attempting to go with the yes, but philosophy (Thanks Andrea!!).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why aren't variant skeletons and zombies legal right now?
Because the bestiary text is not included in the AR! If that text was in the CRB then sure you could make the variants but it isn't so you can't.
That is true.
John Compton indicated he was open to hearing discussion of whether or not to change that.
I think opening up only the variants that are in the Bestiary seems reasonable.
Okay, here's my proposal then:
Allow the Bestiary 1 variant undead: bloody and flaming skeleton, fast and plague zombies. (No other variant undead are allowed. Undead do not carry over to other scenarios.)
Here's my reasoning:
PFS allows things unless there's a reason not to. Reasons are usually one of the following:
- Flavor issues (some gun archetypes, illiteracy)
- Too evil
- Too gross
- Too overpowered
- Highly disputed or just plain "doesn't work correctly" broken rules
- Too time-consuming
- Relies on poorly understood or not-used optional rules
Flavor - I don't see a big difference in flavor between regular and variant zombies and skeletons. Perhaps the plague zombies.
Evil - Doesn't seem to be any more or less evil than regular zombies.
Gross - The grossest of these are plague zombies, but those also pop up in 1-2 evergeen introductory scenarios, so it doesn't seem that's too problematic. The plague is fairly slow-acting and shouldn't be a big problem.
Overpowered - this one needs to be checked for each variant;
- Bloody skeleton - Let's assume that you manage to keep it from destruction in every fight, to avoid the 1-hour delay. (Many dungeons get cleared in less than an hour because everyone wants to avoid buffs running out; the rejuvenation won't come up often.) Then the fast healing is quite nice. It'll start nearly every fight healthy.
Raising two skeletons or one bloody skeleton is often a no-choice; you might encounter only a single creature worth raising. However, you may have to use a Desecrate spell to raise a creature with enough HD to be interesting at your level.
I don't think bloody skeletons are that extreme and the extra cost offsets the extra power.
- Burning skeleton - The fiery aura is a mixed blessing, because it restricts your marching order. It's not enough damage to decide a fight but enough to wear down a party that's constantly in it.
The deathsplosion is cute but depends on raising high-HD skeletons which is more expensive. That comes down to: is 50gp of onyx a fair price for 1d6 damage?
Overall, I think burning skeletons make for terrifying enemies for level 1 PCs, but are pretty lame as animates for level 5+ necromancers.
- Plague zombie - the plague is so slow-acting that this variant is actually weaker than ordinary zombies in a typical scenario.
- Fast zombie - Lacking DR and healing, all they do is hit hard a couple of times before they get taken down. You pay twice as much onyx for a monster that hits twice as hard on a full attack but dies faster.
Overall the fast zombie and bloody skeleton do seem better than regular zombies and skeletons, but they also cost more. I don't think they're OP. The other two are actually worse for players.
Disputed or "doesn't work" broken rules - the templates are pretty clear as is the process of how to make them.
Too time-consuming - fast zombies do more attacks with the same stats on a full attack, and bloody skeletons are more likely to last more than one encounter. On the other hand, due to expenses, there'll be slightly fewer of them. I don't think it makes much of a difference compared to regular undead.
Poorly understood/unused optional rules - not the case.
All in all there doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason to not allow variant undead, so following the PFS approach of "yes, unless", I think they should be allowed.
---
As for limiting it to B1: other sources might have nice content, but who knows what happens if you open up everything. This particular thing is safe enough to allow.
---
As for not carrying beyond the scenario: carrying over is too much trouble. You might animate a unique monster, or harvest an unusually nasty but super-rare monster. And it creates significant bookkeeping. Best not to go there.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too time-consuming - fast zombies do more attacks with the same stats on a full attack, and bloody skeletons are more likely to last more than one encounter. On the other hand, due to expenses, there'll be slightly fewer of them. I don't think it makes much of a difference compared to regular undead.
Too time consuming includes the time required to apply the template to a creature. I haven't seen that addressed.
It takes one standard action to cast Animate Dead.
As a GM, how am I supposed to handle this? Do I stop everything to give the player the information so that the template can be applied, then continue around the table and stop a second time when that person's turn comes up to verify the template is applied correctly?
Unlike summons, you can't just have all the statistics computed ahead of time unless you know exactly what monsters you will meet.
I realize that this is an existing problem, but suspect that widening the choices is likely to make it more appealing and cause more people to do it.
Please discuss how animating undead is currently handled by GMs, and any ways to make this less likely to stall a table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd expect the player of a Necromancer to bring the template with them (preferably printed from their Bestiary PDF) and to inform the GM before game that they might animate fallen foes in combat. When it happens, you as the GM need only read off the relevant stats to the player, who should be ready to write them down.
No different than Dominate Person or Dominate Animal.
|
|
You could also have a 7th level Necromancer animating a critter in a 10-11 game and bringing it to a 3-7 or 5-9 game.
This is the biggest issue I see, easiest way to handle it would be to allow a gm to say you cant use it for the scenario, so you had to leave it at home. With the cost of animate dead it will add up quickly when someones trying to raise a big critter, ill be honest I always felt that with its accumulated cost or even worse the cost of a single robe of bones, removing the long term benefit of there use makes them unreasonable to even use. Lets be honest a 7th lvl necromancer has spells and abilities that far out do a 10th lvl critter.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Carrying over undead is not just a bad idea, it breaks the wealth system. You can't take ANYTHING from a scenario after it ends unless you pay for it afterwards.
And as Nefreet pointed out, if you can bring an animated bulette from your Tier 7-11 sceanrio into my Tier 3-7 scenario... that breaks more than just the wealth system.
I know a few people *want* to do this, but it is a bad idea for the campaign.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
I'd expect the player of a Necromancer to bring the template with them (preferably printed from their Bestiary PDF) and to inform the GM before game that they might animate fallen foes in combat. When it happens, you as the GM need only read off the relevant stats to the player, who should be ready to write them down.
Are relevant stats just name of monster and they are expected to have the correct bestiary? If not, there is quite a bit of information in a full stat block. I could easily do two or more player or NPC actions in less time than it would take me to read off the stat block.
No different than Dominate Person or Dominate Animal.
Neither of which changes anything in the stat block of the creature. Animate Dead changes the stat block.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion has made me think of another related issue...
I would like to see some language added to the Guide that explicitly specifies how all non-PC creatures will be handled in combat. Right now, it doesn't say that the player controls them (although we assume most do); they are actually NPCs and so some GMs feel they can/will take them over, or veto inappropriate actions; it can be subject to a lot of table variation. It also leaves the GM with a difficult confrontation when a player is playing multiple characters that are just too complicated for them. (We see a lot of younger players, and they all want to play druids and have a pet... they just don't all have the math skills to make it work.)
I would like to see the Guide specify that the PC controls all created/summoned/animated creatures, except in the following cases:
* when the character is making a creature do something it can't/won't do under the rules of the relationship (animal companion, charm, summoned, etc.), the GM steps in and takes control of that creature for the duration of the encounter.
* when the player has shown themselves unable to handle the logistics of running multiple creatures in an efficient manner. At this point, the GM would take over management of the creature(s), and/or disallow further use of spells that create more (like summons).
Technically, I can deal with this now, by taking over the NPCs and running them myself, but then I have more work to do, AND the player feels like I'm being a jerk to them. An explicit explanation of how it works for everyone would go a long way to resolving this issue.
This sort of explicit language would probably deal with 90% of the issues GMs have with "friends" builds, and make them more 'acceptable' and less subject to table variation. It may also encourage players who can't even decide what do do themselves to not play builds that slow the table to a glacial pace - which in most cases is the root of a GM's issues with these builds in the first place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does it break tge wealth? Animate dead is a permanent spell to begin with, just as secret page and secret chest. So if they are permanent in pfs, how does aimate dead break the wealth system that they do not.
I found a +5 holy avenger, but had to give it back at the end of the adventure. You found a pet black dragon and you got to keep it for free.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see some language added to the Guide that explicitly specifies how all non-PC creatures will be handled in combat.
I think that this would be a very BAD idea. I want things to be fuzzy.
Currently, I let the players handle the animal as they wish as long as they are being more or less reasonable. When its a new player with an AC I make sure it has tricks trained and the player has sufficient effective Handle Animal skill. If I think the player is pushing the limits I'll point that out. Works fine almost all the time. There is huge table variation in what people think is "reasonable" but that is better than trying to spell things out.
After making sure the character has enough handle animal skill I do NOT want to bother with all the rules minutiae all the time. Slows things down to almost no effect.
Other GMs want to enforce things more strictly. I'm fine with that (makes almost no difference anyway since I have built my AC to legally do what I have it do).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too time-consuming - fast zombies do more attacks with the same stats on a full attack, and bloody skeletons are more likely to last more than one encounter. On the other hand, due to expenses, there'll be slightly fewer of them. I don't think it makes much of a difference compared to regular undead.
Too time consuming includes the time required to apply the template to a creature. I haven't seen that addressed.
It takes one standard action to cast Animate Dead.
As a GM, how am I supposed to handle this? Do I stop everything to give the player the information so that the template can be applied, then continue around the table and stop a second time when that person's turn comes up to verify the template is applied correctly?
Unlike summons, you can't just have all the statistics computed ahead of time unless you know exactly what monsters you will meet.
I realize that this is an existing problem, but suspect that widening the choices is likely to make it more appealing and cause more people to do it.
Please discuss how animating undead is currently handled by GMs, and any ways to make this less likely to stall a table.
That's a fair question, which has two separate answers;
1) My breakdown was comparing the time consumption between currently-legal standard skeletons and zombies vs. variants. I think the difference between them is negligible, so increased time consumption is not a reason to forbid variants.
2) How much time does it take at the table to compute a skeleton/zombie? The variants add very little rules, so how much just for the base undead?
This is somewhat time-consuming. You need to know at least: Size, racial HD, Strength, Dexterity, all natural attacks, movement modes, and any special abilities that improve its attacks (rare). The rest is in the template.
The way I've seen it done is that the necromancer's player gets the name of the monster and looks it up in his own Bestiary. That works for most monsters, since you don't get any class level stuff anyway. It won't work for unique monsters or things from 3PP sources though. In that case the player has to query the GM for stats.
Playing a necromancer requires some degree of preparation. You have to really know your stuff. You could carry prefab statblocks for "usual suspects" monsters to raise in the middle of combat, and postpone raising weird monsters until after the fight, so your turn doesn't drag.
One thing that does concern me with the "player uses Bestiary" approach is that you might run into more of the same monster later in the adventure, and now you've read the page in the middle of the adventure.
Perhaps a better solution is to have a "form" that the GM can fill in with the minimal data you need, which he can just copy out of his own statblock.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Hmm... could be, although I expect that would generate much more player rage than my suggestion.
My worry is that if the GM has to show "just cause" to take control of an NPC, then that will devolve into arguments in game over is what the player having the NPC do out of character. Where as if the default is the GM controls the NPC, but can delegate it to the player, that will result in arguments here on the board, but the GM can do what he needs to do in game.
I will in general prefer arguments on the board over arguments in game.
|
|
How does it break tge wealth? Animate dead is a permanent spell to begin with, just as secret page and secret chest. So if they are permanent in pfs, how does aimate dead break the wealth system that they do not.I found a +5 holy avenger, but had to give it back at the end of the adventure. You found a pet black dragon and you got to keep it for free.
The undead are created and generally its not cheap. 25 per hd adds up. Not to mention items last longer than undead, plus the necromancer may be leaving it at home if any followers of pharasma or sarenrae are in the party. To limit 1 permanent spell but not others is unbalancing to begin with. I honestly see the examply you gave to be how a petty and competitive player handles it. While we are limiting class abilities and spells lets take away animal companions there are those who say ac's are unfair to the rest of the party.
My point in that is whwn you sit down to play your sharing resources not competing against each other.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think carrying over undead is not a good idea just because it's messy.
A while back we were playing
Likewise with undead carrying over. Maybe Adventure 1 has a weird custom monster in it, like some kind of colossal monster that tramples you over and over, and was written specifically for this adventure. If you tried to carry that over to the next adventure, that GM couldn't verify the stats you're using unless he's also got the text of adventure 1 at hand.
So maybe you can only keep undead from some books in the core assumption, but not others? Now our carry-over rule is looking more complicated.
Next you have of course the thing: maybe your L7 necromancer first plays in a 7-11 adventure on high tier and Desecreate-animates a horrible monster with 28HD (which the higher-level PCs killed for you). Then you go to a 1-7 group playing the 3-4 tier with a group of PCs ranging between 1 and 7. Is it really a good idea to let that monster carry over?
So before you allow undead carry-over, you need to establish so many safeguards, that it's probably best not to allow it at all. A monster raised in a scenario is likely appropriate to that scenario, because it gets dropped into the tier from whence it came. It shouldn't be allowed into an entirely different scenario with possibly entirely different tier.
I think undead carry-over is typically one of those long-term things like Crafting that belong in a true home campaign, not PFS.
|
|
We're not flat banning everything. This is an option for an option. And good luck allowing GMs to have that kind of say - players won't stand for it, as is shown time and time again on these boards.
Rules aren't made for the reasonable person, they're made to keep the unreasonable person in check. And GM'ing already has enoug hurdles without being saddled with "here's this thing I picked up for free, here's the stats, here's the template I have to assign, can you check this all" just for a tiny bit of variation in an area already conisdered a pain in the butt by many people.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That reminds me of another nasty to turn into a skeleton.
** spoiler omitted **
Got to say the more I think about it the more positive I become that no carry over of undead should be allowed. It would restrict cool BBEG in scenarios since they would inevitably get turned into undead for use by PC's.
Skeleton CR 5
NE Huge Undead
Init +8; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; Perception +10
DEFENSE
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 11 (+4 Dex, +3 natural, –2 size)
hp 45 (10d8+0)
Fort +11, Ref +7, Will +7
DR 5/Bludgeoning; immune to cold; undead traits
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft., climb 20 ft.
Melee bite +11 (2d6+12)
Space 15 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special attacks: none
STATISTICS
Str 27, Dex 18, Con ---, Int ---, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +3; CMB +11; CMD 15 (can’t be tripped)
Feats Improved Initiative
Skills None
Languages None
SPECIAL ABILITIES
None (as it lost grab)
You have to be playing sub-tier 6-7 in a 3-7 to run into it. It costs 500 gp in onyx to animate. And it is not very scary at all, since all the Mythic stuff just goes away in the translation, and so does most of the Advanced template, other than a few minor things. I think it hits a little better and does a small amount of damage more because of that template, and has slightly better Reflex and Fort saves. It's AC sucks, even with the bonus to Dex from Advanced.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That reminds me of another nasty to turn into a skeleton.
** spoiler omitted **
Got to say the more I think about it the more positive I become that no carry over of undead should be allowed. It would restrict cool BBEG in scenarios since they would inevitably get turned into undead for use by PC's.
Agreed on disallowing the carry over of undead. Though I'm not quite subscribed to the example you quoted. There are some very interesting monsters that would be out of place in terms of balance in scenarios from which they don't originate. Right now just saying "undead don't carry over between scenarios" is a very simple and elegant rule that leaves very little room for error.
I think there's also a strong chance that many people don't realize that the animated undead lose class levels upon being reanimated, and that leads to some balance problems and perhaps also contribute to the resentment of this mechanic. I also think with the onyx cost for Animate Dead is well balanced for the scope of one scenario.
That being said, I think opening up some of the variant animate undead options (such as fast zombie) would be good. Admittedly, I had thought they were legal up until I noticed this thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animate Dead should not carry over between scenarios, there is too much potential for imbalance, other pets are balanced by level and character investment, these would be based on encountered creatures which puts the monster and character outside expected norms.
The cost of Animate Dead can be mitigated. The False Focus feat can be used for up to 4 HD of undead at a time while the Blood Money spell can turn they entire cost into a couple of points of Str damage. This can change the balancing factor if you note cost as a balance to character investment.