Since it says there's little difference between the two I'm OK with an underbar.Should we make both corporeal and incorporeal versions, or simply note one or the other as an underbar?
Don't worry, as you've already realized I just forgot to change the size after copy-and-pasting the Undead Mass to use as a template.Whoa! <slams on brakes>
A Gargantuan creature with 2 HD?
Oh, wait. <Sees Space/reach, calms down>
I did wonder about expanding the size Advancement so it went up to Huge or Gargantuan. I'd prefer a non-standard Advancement (assuming we keep them gaining Str and Cha per HD they advance), perhaps something like:If we're going to call it Gargantuan, the space/reach should be bigger!
Frankly, I don't think these are so interesting as the small version, but I could see doing a "single zombie" and a Gargantuan lost soul. I'm not particularly fond of these as just being advancements of the same monster; they ought to be quite different (and I'm not sure advancement would work so well over such a large HD and size range anyway).
I feel like there are some other big agglomeration type undead we should look at for comparison.
Good points, freyar.
Perhaps we should stat out several sizes (like skeletons, zombies, elementals) to account for various combinations?
That's alot of work for the DM. I think it best if we stat 'em out at different sizes, and find a way to make the assimilation fit that model.I'd rather just have them advance by merging. It would be less confusing than having "triple-merged Large lost souls" and the like.
That's OK by me, although I'd still like them gaining HD and attacks as they merge with more lost souls, since that's easy to keep track of.That's alot of work for the DM. I think it best if we stat 'em out at different sizes, and find a way to make the assimilation fit that model.
Okay, I'll have a go at revising the current merge with the dead.Sure, that's fine.
A good example of blending both methods is the nabassu in Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss.