|
This is a continuation of a discussion sparked on Pathfinder Society facebook public group.
Those of us who like the concept of animated the corpses of our foes and using them to make more corpses have been missing out on the action in PFS.
This is not wholly because you don't get to keep your undead minions between sessions or because they are expensive and may not do enough damage.
The reason is this; the full functionality of the spell has not been made clearly legal (or clear at all, really) in either the CRB, FAQ or Additional Resources.
There is a lack of clarity because the rules for creating undead are not in the spell itself, but in the stat blocks of the creatures that the spell makes as well as the fact that many of those stat blocks were written after the spell was. The spell only declares undead types it can make, namely skeletons and zombies. No variants are mentioned, except in Lesser Animate Dead which states that the lesser spell cannot create variants.
This leads to table variation. Some GMs judge that you only get the stat blocks in the bestiary book, which is mostly useless. Some say you get the template. Others say you get all the rules scattered throughout the books that describe how animate dead works.
But, a very strict reading says you only get vanilla skeletons and zombies.
Please, weigh in with your thoughts...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Since in PFS we must use a rather hard lined RAW reading of text, I was hoping we could get a revisit to Animate Dead to clarify how it works in PFS. Whether variants, or additional undead whose entries in the bestiary state Animate Dead can create them, are allowed.
- Skeleton - Bestiary 1
- Zombie - Bestiary 1
- Classic Horrors Revisited - Contains several variants, on pages 54-55
- exoskeleton - AP 91
- Necrocraft - Bestiary 4 (Not really good for PFS, IMHO)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should probably mention that John Compton suggested you get feedback here.
Jessex is correct, and John Compton verified on Facebook. Variants are not PFS legal. There should not be table variation on this.
But John appears to be amenable to at least having the discussion of adding thier legality. So the conversation shouldn't be about thier legality. It should be about whether they should be legal or not, and what the ramifications would be if they were made legal.
|
No variant undead. For two good reasons:
1. RAW.
2. Anything that makes NPcs more powerful minimizes the actions of the other PCs, and this sort of build is detrimental to an Organized Play campaign as a whole. (That is my opinion, of course, but if you think about a game designed to be fun for every player, NPCs aren't in the best interests of anyone but the one player who gets the play them.)
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Also remember he's limited to one zombie (at a time, or , per adventure if you want to be really strict)
The combat pet restriction doesn't apply to animated dead in the same way it doesn't apply to summons. The FAQ is talking about class granted animal companions and eidolons.
How many animals can I have at any given time?
During the course of a scenario, you may have one combat animal and as many noncombat animals as you like. Noncombat animals (ponies, horses, pet dogs, and so on) cannot participate in combat at all. If you have so many noncombat animals that their presence is slowing a session down, the GM has the right to ask you to select one noncombat animal and leave the rest behind. A summoner's eidolon is considered an animal companion for the purposes of counting combat and noncombat animals. If you have more than one class-granted animal companion (or eidolon), you must choose which will be considered the combat animal at the start of the scenario. In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive.
I would expect table variation.
|
|
Also remember he's limited to one zombie (at a time, or , per adventure if you want to be really strict)
Yes, I think that would be fair. The animator would have to count them as their 'battle pet' instead of how you count summons. Though, if they can only have one, it might also be fair to amend the persistent magical effects rule and let them keep their one undead through many games. Of course, you would not be able to have a familiar too.
|
|
Violating the spirit of that rule will get a necromancer shut down at a table I'm running right quick. I no more want to deal with a horde of undead under one players control than a horde of combat pets.
I certainly wouldn't want to see that either. Just as I wouldn't want to see someone summoning 10-20 creatures. It would bog the game down. Even for those skilled at handling pets.
Though, anyone creating a horde of undead is only doing so for 'cheese', roleplay or annoyance. Since having many undead means they are ineffective in combat and are just fodder.I think it if completely fair to restrict the usage of Animate Dead to one or two creations. Just so long as it is allowed to be a useful one or two.
That way, you could just have an undead 'butler' if you wanted, but not five.
|
|
No variant undead. For two good reasons:
1. RAW.
2. Anything that makes NPcs more powerful minimizes the actions of the other PCs, and this sort of build is detrimental to an Organized Play campaign as a whole. (That is my opinion, of course, but if you think about a game designed to be fun for every player, NPCs aren't in the best interests of anyone but the one player who gets the play them.)
In reply to 2, I agree that overly powerful/plentiful NPCs for PCs can be a problem. But, pets are big part of this game. There is no denying that battle useful familiars*, ACs** and eidolons are already everywhere in the game. I am going to say I doubt that allowing at least one undead pet for builds that are built to use them is going to break the game any more on that front.
Animate Dead SHOULD be restricted for ease of play. But, I think it should still be a viable option for some. I would like the rules to reflect that idea.*I have a scorpion familiar on a character that aids another to my ac, several times a turn.
**Rangers, Druids, Hunters, Cavaliers, Paladins, many archetypes for many classes, anyone with Animal Ally
|
|
No persistent undead. That would mean tracking it between session which is simply a mess. That is simply one of the many things that happens when you play in an organized play campaign.
You already have to track ACs, familiars and eidolons. Why would adding another battle pet to the list make that any messier?
The GM writes the HD and creature type on your chronicle sheet, (to prevent cheating, which is already disallowed) and then write up a character sheet for it. And then, if it dies, you write that too. Really not much different than current practice.If it does not participate in battle, and does not die, then you wouldn't even have to track it at all.
Could you please explain what I am missing that would make it so messy? Is it that they do not heal on their own?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I think that would be fair. The animator would have to count them as their 'battle pet' instead of how you count summons. Though, if they can only have one, it might also be fair to amend the persistent magical effects rule and let them keep their one undead through many games. Of course, you would not be able to have a familiar too.Also remember he's limited to one zombie (at a time, or , per adventure if you want to be really strict)
No. You really don't want someone showing up witha zombie purple worm pet that breaks every scenario. Keep the interesting monster party tactics combinations confined to their own scenario. (Or else the druids would get to keep anything that followed them home)
|
|
I think the only issue to making this legal is, can the undead be Too powerful? I don't think it should be something that can rival an AC or eidolon. So, what restrictions are best to prevent your pall Bud the Undead from being too powerful... but still useful to the creator?
Is it possible inside the current rules(given the list of possible rules that could be made legal, or restriction types already in place for other such things), or would too many new rules need to be made?
|
|
No. You really don't want someone showing up with a zombie purple worm pet that breaks every scenario. Keep the interesting monster party tactics combinations confined to their own scenario. (Or else the druids would get to keep anything that followed them home)Yes, I think that would be fair. The animator would have to count them as their 'battle pet' instead of how you count summons. Though, if they can only have one, it might also be fair to amend the persistent magical effects rule and let them keep their one undead through many games. Of course, you would not be able to have a familiar too.Also remember he's limited to one zombie (at a time, or , per adventure if you want to be really strict)
That is a very good point. A zombie purple worm would be messy. Not very great, since it gets none of its feats or special attacks. But, its reach, burrowing and size are big problems for the party.
That is a good point, maybe size could be one of the restrictions. Medium until 7, then large? Just as a thought.
Or, just simply keep things as they are. No additional rules, just state that you use the templates, and the 4 variants mentioned between the two bestiary entries. Would that cause problems, and what problems would those be? Remember, the spell does cost per HD, and they disappear at the end of the adventure. So, its usage is already pretty limited. It probably would not see wide usage.
|
|
For funzies I thought I would see what sort of monstrosity we could create. I took a somewhat infamous creature from a season 5 module and turned him into a zombie and a skeleton. This is what we get:
** spoiler omitted **
Hardly overpowering at 10-11.
The zombie would get toughness, and staggered.
Also, we would need to see what adding variants would do.Zombies require an extra spell cast for that, and skeletons count as twice their HD for the casting. So, that'd be a 24HD usage of animate dead for a variant skeleton.
|
|
That is a very good point. A zombie purple worm would be messy. Not very great, since it gets none of its feats or special attacks. But, its reach, burrowing and size are big problems for the party.Behold, the mighty purple worm zombie.
'Purple Worm Removed for Spacial purposes'
To be honest, given he wont ever make more than a single attack and the difficulties of using him in most scenarios he isn't really that impressive. It is also not entirely clear whether or not zombies retain special senses of their base creature.
"It uses all the base creature's statistics and special abilities except as noted here." And, senses are never mentioned as changed.
Bump him up to a 'fast zombie', though...Oh, and it won't have grab, because that's a special attack. Zombies lose all of those. Also, size bonus and dex negs get added to flat-footed.
b]Purple Worm Zombie[/b]
N Gargantuan magical beast
Init –1; Senses darkvision 60 ft., tremorsense 60 ft.; Perception +0
AC 12, touch 5, flat-footed 11 (–1 Dex, +7 natural, –4 size)
hp 102 (16d10+16)
Fort +5, Ref +7, Will +10
Speed 30 ft., burrow 20 ft., swim 10 ft.
Melee bite +22 (4d8+13), sting +22 (2d8+13), Slam +22 (2d8+13)
Space 20 ft.; Reach 15 ft.
Str 37, Dex 8, Con --, Int --, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +12; CMB +29 (+33 grapple); CMD 36 (can't be tripped)
Feats: Toughness
Special Abilities: Quick Strikes (Ex)
|
|
I'd be more concerned by a 9th level caster playing out of tier in a certain season 3 scenario getting this:
skeleton old underworld dragon
NE Huge undead (fire)
Init +4; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +0
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 11, touch 8, flat-footed 11 (+3 natural, -2 size)
hp 117 (18d8)
Fort +6, Ref +6, Will +11
DR 5/bludgeoning; Immune cold, undead traits; SR 33
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 40 ft., burrow 30 ft., fly 200 ft. (poor)
Melee bite +21 (2d8+15), 2 claws +21 (1d8+10), 2 claws +21 (2d6+10), gore +21 (2d6+15), tail slap +16 (2d6+15)
Space 15 ft.; Reach 10 ft. (15 ft. with bite and gore)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 31, Dex 10, Con —, Int —, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +13; CMB +25; CMD 35 (39 vs. trip)
Feats Improved Initiative
Skills Acrobatics +0 (+4 to jump), Fly -8
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Burrowing (30 feet)
Damage Reduction (5/bludgeoning)
Darkvision (60 feet)
Flight (200 feet, Poor)
Immunity to Cold
Undead Traitswhich other GM's might not appreciate showing up in their games.
Also, the skeleton claw attacks would get the full damage, as you only use the skeleton damage if the creature did not already have claw attacks and the damage was less than granted for a skeleton claw attack.
It will also have, Adamantine Claws (Ex), since that increases melee attacks and is (ex). But, it will lose burrowing since that is a special ability and does not increase melee or range attacks.edit:My bad, being an imperial it would still fly.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best answer I have for the problem, after this discussion, so far is to give one 'undead' slot to anyone who can cast the spell. They may have one creation, and it disappears at the end of the session. I would like a reduction in price for the casting for PFS, but it isn't strictly necessary. The variants don't seem to make them overly powerful, only to make them useful. So, adding them as legal does not seem to be an issue, power-wise.
I would like to see exoskeleton added to the list of acceptable animates. Also, not strictly necessary.
It would have to follow the normal pet rules of thumb, IE, know what you are doing before you sit at the table. Undead creation can be made into a really simple table that you plug the few things an undead version of a thing keeps. Don't slow the game down, don't hog the spot light. Basically the same thing anyone with a pet type thing must do in remembering that this is a team game.
|
I don't know if having as a pet would be wise. That would open up many casters to having a pet when they most likely didn't need one. And also, what happens when anyone happens to get a scroll of Command Undead on a mindless undead?
I got a feeling if you want to have easier access to undead, either look into the Robe of Bones and the aforementioned spell, or see if you might reduce the price of onyx.
Though in my opinion, everything is fine. Casters still have its smelly toy, and there isn't going to be a sudden pet rush of smelly things.
|
|
I really don't think that discussion of changing how the rules of the game work is appropriate. If you want to change the PFS specific rule on the effect ending at the end of the session, then that would be appropriate.
But PFS management has set precedence (which I think is of paramount importance) to not start creating new rules that significantly change the rules of the game. We should not be creating a special set of rules just for a subset of rules for the game.
|
|
I don't know if having as a pet would be wise. That would open up many casters to having a pet when they most likely didn't need one. And also, what happens when anyone happens to get a scroll of Command Undead on a mindless undead?
I got a feeling if you want to have easier access to undead, either look into the Robe of Bones and the aforementioned spell, or see if you might reduce the price of onyx.
Though in my opinion, everything is fine. Casters still have its smelly toy, and there isn't going to be a sudden pet rush of smelly things.
I'm certainly not looking for it to be a wizards/clerics animal companion. That would be ridiculous and need a whole slew of new rules to function. No, I'm just looking for animate dead to be a useful spell to cast and reflect how it is meant to function in Pathfinder. PFS currently has it restricted beyond functionality.
The only reason I listed a 'undead slot' was not to give a Bonus to casters... but to set a limit on a spell that does not already have it.Honestly, I do not believe it needs that limit... but I see that battle pets do have a limit, and the reason for that limit is very valid. Since animate undead can not give you lots of useful undead... only lots of fodder.. or one or two useful ones.. the limit seems self creating.
So, it would not really need to be a rule. It would follow under the common guideline of don't bog down the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't think that discussion of changing how the rules of the game work is appropriate. If you want to change the PFS specific rule on the effect ending at the end of the session, then that would be appropriate.
But PFS management has set precedence (which I think is of paramount importance) to not start creating new rules that significantly change the rules of the game. We should not be creating a special set of rules just for a subset of rules for the game.
Let me begin by saying I completely agree with you. I am not looking for a huge change in rules. Only allowing the rules that exist already to be PFS legal, as appropriate for PFS... and maybe, considering PFS already changes how the spell works considering permanence, I would not mind that fact being taken into consideration for the cost of the spell.
One option is certainly to modify the list of permanent spell affects to include animate dead. That would not be a new rule.. so much as adding animate dead to the current list.
And, precedent is that permanent battle pets are restricted to one. That is a good rule that I support. So, if animate dead does get included on the exception list for permanency, I think their existence should follow the standard rule.
But I understand that doing so could cause new intolerable issues. So, instead, I would follow the precedent of trading one illegal bonus for a legal one. Such as the feat trade out wizards do. Instead of being permanent, they could be cheaper, as an option. That isn't a huge rules change, and would not require new rules. Just a change of one sum per HD for another.
But, I do not state it is necessary either! It would be nice. But not necessary.
But at the end of the day, all that I truly lobby for is that the zombie and skeleton variants displayed in the entries for each be PFS legal. I have not seen any evidence that they would break the game or give the spell too much power.
I would also like the exoskeleton, but that is certainly not a make or break issue.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have an alternative suggestion, considering the amount of trouble caused by this spell and the amount of questions asked about it.
Remove it and all variants from PFS play completely. Sure we'd still have people complaining on the forums but there would be no more in play problems.
That would invalidate a lot of peoples characters, something we've had more than enough of recently. Tugging to the extremes for the golden mean fallacy and advocating bans on options when people ask about them isn't
conducive to open dialog for people who want to suggest changes to the campaign.
|
I don't prescribe to the kind of entitled "please think of the players(namely me)!" rhetoric wherein closing off options is the worst thing campaign leads and gm's could do, but even so I think this kind restructuring would create a big divide in the player base and shouldn't ever be considered. Better just ban all evil than open the door to massive alignment-shift-a-thons.
|
After reading through this I do see the table variation that the OP was talking about. I was always of the belief that "variant undead" were never achievable, as they're not referenced in the spell, but believed that "skeletons and zombies" were possible, excluding variants such as Fast Zombies and Bloody Skeletons (because they're "variants")
But I still thought you could animate a Briarborn Juggernaut (there's actually a story of this happening in the GM Discussion thread). After reading this, it seems some ppl don't believe that is possible.
So, clarification on that would be preferred.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
There is a PFS legal feat called skeleton summoner. That might shed some light on this case, but it´s more about summoning, not creating undead.
|
|
Certainly the issue is not worth a whack of the ban hammer.
Is a small clarification such an onerous task that it is better to just ban the whole thing than discuss it?
I honestly do not believe so. The issue is small.
Should animate dead get the variants in the bestiary under the skeleton and zombie entries?
I believe the question is valid.
Also, to show
Summon monster gains you the entry to a monster from the bestiary, though it is not explicitly labeled as legal. It also lets those summoned monsters use bestiary feats. Animate dead should do no less... especially since the rules for actually creating zombies and skeletons are in the entries for them in the bestiary... which includes the rules for the variants. If those entries are not legal... you wouldn't be able to create any undead, much less the variants. It is a very very small step between; can not create, can create using template, can create variants.
IE "I'm going to create a zombie." *creates a fast zombie.*
That Could be a valid way to read the text. You made a zombie, it just happened to be a fast zombie, whose rules are in the zombie entry.
It could also be valid, and an extremely strict reading, to say that you do not get any modifying words on your undead, thus no variants.
Thus... it is unclear. More unclear than I think many who responded so far see it as.
But, even if it were absolutely clear that you do not get the variants... it would be a valid discussion to decide if the variants are worth making legal in PFS.
I know this is a fringe topic. Not everyone wants to create undead. And many people who play paladins, or followers of Pharasma, see it as an affront that should not be allowed in PFS. Which... is really weird. We usually have to worry about player knowledge in game... not character bias outside of it. But, just because the numbers are small and there are some who do not like it, does not make the question any less valid.
Nor do I believe that allowing the variants would harm PFS any more than allowing undead to be summoned/created to begin with.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have an alternative suggestion, considering the amount of trouble caused by this spell and the amount of questions asked about it.
Remove it and all variants from PFS play completely. Sure we'd still have people complaining on the forums but there would be no more in play problems.
Can we please stop with the thinking that if someone makes a suggestion about a part of the campaign that the obvious solution is to ban that option from the campaign entirely.
It is like when a group of people suggest that it might be a good idea to raise the speed limit on the interstate highways, and you come along and suggest we ban cars instead.
Instead, please argue based on the merits of the suggestion itself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People have been, but the OP has not really accepted any opinions that don't allow his desired option.
Taking undead from scenario to scenario is a bad idea.
Yes, some people want to play necromancers. They can, under the limitations of the campaign. I'd love to play a Master Summonner, but I can't, I understand the reasons why I can't, and I've moved on.
Variant undead makes undead a more viable "pet", and so I am personally not in favor of them. Neither, it seems, ar the previous five campaign coordinators and the majority of the 400 or so VOs, since the rule hasn't changed despite being suggested at least once a year. And I think those folks probably have a decent sense of what works campaign-wide and what doesn't.
|
|
People have been, but the OP has not really accepted any opinions that don't allow his desired option.
Taking undead from scenario to scenario is a bad idea.
Yes, some people want to play necromancers. They can, under the limitations of the campaign. I'd love to play a Master Summonner, but I can't, I understand the reasons why I can't, and I've moved on.
Variant undead makes undead a more viable "pet", and so I am personally not in favor of them. Neither, it seems, ar the previous five campaign coordinators and the majority of the 400 or so VOs, since the rule hasn't changed despite being suggested at least once a year. And I think those folks probably have a decent sense of what works campaign-wide and what doesn't.
And that's a fine position to take, and one that I can respect.
I have no respect for the "well, maybe we should just ban it!" It is small, petty, and vindictive. It also does not engender a sense of community. I think it is in the best interest of the campaign if players feel a sense of buy-in.
Every time that someone says, "hey I think it might be a good idea to allow X to include Y," someone else comes along and says, "No. Stop being so ridiculous, and because you suggested this, I think we should ban X altogether!" And that leads to less discussion and more argument.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People have been, but the OP has not really accepted any opinions that don't allow his desired option.
That's not true at all. I've gladly taken every bit of opinion, and even spoken about it in a spitballing ideas sort of way. The only thing I didn't appreciate is those whose answer was simply, 'ban it, too much work.' For instance, issues of carrying over undead, having too many undead minions and bogging the game down, possible adding too much power to classes that do not need it... Not once have I put down an opinion simply because it was not my own nor reflected my wants.
If banning animate dead was the answer the devs gave... I'd be okay with that. That is clear in function. I wouldn't like it as a player, but I'd respect it as a fan of PFS.
Please don't throw generalizations at my personage that do not reflect my actions.
Taking undead from scenario to scenario is a bad idea.
I completely agree on this. It would possibly hinder scenario creation, and could cause issues at the table. A case where I threw an idea at the wall, and someone said why it was a bad idea... and then I agreed with them based on their argument.
Yes, some people want to play necromancers. They can, under the limitations of the campaign. I'd love to play a Master Summonner, but I can't, I understand the reasons why I can't, and I've moved on.Variant undead makes undead a more viable "pet", and so I am personally not in favor of them. Neither, it seems, ar the previous five campaign coordinators and the majority of the 400 or so VOs, since the rule hasn't changed despite being suggested at least once a year. And I think those folks probably have a decent sense of what works campaign-wide and what doesn't.
I do not wish to break PFS. I am not looking to create cheese, or to have a character that is UBER. In fact, I have never played a necromancer in or out of PFS. I only want to make a spell viable as a PFS option, instead of being a heavily substandard option.
It is in my experience that subjects not talked about never change, but those that spark debate sometimes get an answer.And, so you understand that 'just moving on' may not always be the best option...
From John Compton from a thread I created in the Pathfinder Society Facebook group
"Looking at the animate dead spell, there is no reference to the bloody skeleton, flaming skeleton, fast zombie, or plague zombie alternates; those appear in the Bestiary, which does not list those "sub-templates" as legal. By a strict reading, they're not available in the organized play campaign. However, I think there's a case to be made for them being added. I would like to make sure that the paizo.com community weighs in on the matter, too, so I encourage someone to create a thread in the organized play general discussion. That is also where I am more likely to look when I am at work and updating the documents."