Exotic zombies at WotC

[Wormwood]

I do begin to tire of the [word+word]SPACE[Creature type] naming scheme. I realize it's probably tough to come up with names for this many weird critters, but it still feels kinda hokey after a while.

Really? Originally I was a little skeptical, but lately the convention is starting to grow on me.

Maybe that's because I like it so much in M:tG

 

[arwenarrowny]

I nearly punched myself in the teeth when I saw that the latest Ampersand column is actually called "Exciting News!" Sounds like something that belongs in the "Does anyone agree with me about 4E?" meta-thread.

Perhaps Bill Slaviscek is the many times great-grandfather of one Prof. Farnsworth?

 

[Irda Ranger]

I do begin to tire of the [word+word]SPACE[Creature type] naming scheme. I realize it's probably tough to come up with names for this many weird critters, but it still feels kinda hokey after a while.

Consider the alternative though. Imagine if WotC decided to make an original and unique name for each new monster and sub-type introduced in the MM, so instead of the Chillborn, Corruption and Gravehound Zombies, you have the the Grekal, the Slizzar and the Mok'Kror. And then they do that 320 more times.

1. How original, unique and interesting to you think the 273rd monster name would be?

2. How long would it take you remember what the heck a Slizzar is, if a month after skimming through the MM your DM just said "Three slizzars jump out from behind the grave stone"? The first dozen times that happened you'd be like "What's a slizzar again?" and your DM would go "You know the extra-putrid, extra-rotting zombie that throws meaty chunks of itself at you." "Oh right." And even after you've finally got it memorized, you'd be saying "'Slizzar'?? Couldn't WotC think of something better?"


I think the current naming convention is fine. It's usually evocative, but mostly it's descriptive of what the monster is, which provides me with the mnemonic handles necessary to remember what they are and what they do. I can always call them something else in the campaign world. In fact, me being me, I'll probably have a dozen different names for them, depending on the religion, culture or other background of the NPC speaking.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Interesting Article. I like what I see so far...... sorta.

Are monster templates are going the way of the dodo? I really hope not, since templates are what made 3.x monsters so friggin cool.

I am not sure if they are dead, but they might.

The question is, will 4th edition provide an alternative that works equally well to make monsters cool*.
Templates provided a way to change and add abilities to a creature, and also provided a mechanic to balance them (by telling you how the CR modified).
Maybe 4th edition makes it easy to slap on abilities without having to use templates?



*) Even I am using this word too often. I guess allong with Apartosaurus and Tyrannosaurus, the Thesaurus is also dead...

 

[Plane Sailing]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071022

To this end, in the Monster Manual, three exotic zombies appear. The first is the chillborn zombie, the coldness of the grave given just enough volition to be bent on murder. The corruption zombie is a paragon of rot with a great throwing arm. The final new zombie is the gravehound zombie.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I post a link to the new article and then find that someone beat me to it, but with a title I didn't notice - so I've merged my nascent thread in with the original.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

The gravehound zombie sounds particularly nice, with its undead deathgrip. (Reminds me of the werewolf boasting in Prince Caspian).

Also, I'm betting that you can easily adapt it for other four-legged animal zombies.

 

[erf_beto]

While I still strongly dislike changing zombies from a template, and wouldn't care to use these rules for general purposes, they DO inspire me to run a wicked Castlevania mini-campaign.

I'll have mine with a side of rotting bacon, please...

 

[Klaus]

Linkie.

Chillborn zombies?


Set the Wayback Machine to 2004:

Chilling Bones, from Fiery Dragon's Counter Collection 7: Undead

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I am not sure if they are dead, but they might.

The question is, will 4th edition provide an alternative that works equally well to make monsters cool*.
Templates provided a way to change and add abilities to a creature, and also provided a mechanic to balance them (by telling you how the CR modified).
Maybe 4th edition makes it easy to slap on abilities without having to use templates?

I think the 4th edition solution to this problem is to simply provide more monsters, all of which are cool and unique by themselves.

I think that having 100s of different zombie types(because it was a template and could be applied to anything) was overall kind of bad game design. Most zombies only different by a couple of points of AC or a couple points of to hit and damage. They all had the exact same attacks and pretty much came across as the same monster.

However, in 4th edition, a group of undead each having different abilities can work together to have an interesting encounter. Plus, is the rotting corpse shambling towards you the one that freezes you when you get close, the one that stinks and throws flesh at you or the one that just mobs you and pummels you? You won't know until it does its thing providing more unpredictability.