Philotomy Jurament
First Post
Sounds reasonable to me, too; it's simple, not unbalanced, makes sense, and gets the desired effect. As to the rest of the thread, all I have to say is that the rules are your servant, not your master.Altalazar said:
Hasted Zombies?
- Thread starter Altalazar
- Start date
Herzog
Adventurer
Of course it's reasonable.
The question is whether our reading of the RAW
(zombies are not under the effect of a 'slow' spell, therefore 'haste' does not dispell the 'slow', and therefore zombies get the standard improvements as defined by 'haste')
is what the designers had in mind when they wrote the rules.
If not, some change to the zombie or haste spell might make it to the errata.
If so, I and some others will probably house rule it the way we think it should work.
Herzog
The question is whether our reading of the RAW
(zombies are not under the effect of a 'slow' spell, therefore 'haste' does not dispell the 'slow', and therefore zombies get the standard improvements as defined by 'haste')
is what the designers had in mind when they wrote the rules.
If not, some change to the zombie or haste spell might make it to the errata.
If so, I and some others will probably house rule it the way we think it should work.
Herzog
DreadArchon
First Post
In the back of the book, there is a "Sample Undead" section that lists various common stat blocks for zombies and skeletons (organized by size). At the end of each section (zombie and skeleton sections, not the ghost or vampire sections), there is a list of possible upgrades, including the CR increase for each.Altalazar said:
I find those two little sections quite good, personally. Biting ("hungry") zombies, diseased zombies, fast zombies, regenerating zombies, zomibies with good senses to prevent you from hiding from them, skeletons with powerful claw attacks, soldier skeletons (they work good in groups), elemental skeletons, and... hmm. I can't remember all of them. Well, you get the idea.
Edit: But yes, it would be reasonable to allow zombies that extra action from Haste, even though it is currently against the rules.
Last edited:
Altalazar
First Post
Still no word on the official RAW answer, but I have asked in two different places (wizards and paizo).
Something I did want to comment on, and perhaps this is just because I'm a lawyer and so I'm used to having to deal with applying written rules to situations that were not originally contemplated when the rules were written.
It is clear that the original RAW did not contemplate the effects of haste on zombies - or rather, if they did, perhaps they did not need to say much because haste, as it was written (and at the same times zombies were written) gave an extra action, so nothing needed to be said. Thus, 3.0 is born.
Then through playtesting, it was discovered that giving an extra action causes problems where spellcasters are concerned, so they nerf haste to "fix" that. Probably at the time NOBODY was thinking about zombies and the implications it would have for hasting them - so even if they contemplated zombies originally, that original contemplation was turned ambiguous by the change in haste done for entirely different reasons.
In other words, the way things worked before, it was simple and straighforward - add or subtract actions for slow, zombies, haste, etc. But then they decided adding actions that allowed spellcasters to cast two spells in a round was "broken" so in an attempt to "fix" that they made a change without contemplating the ambiguity and lack of clarity that would create.
That's just a hypothetical - I have no idea what the designers were thinking when the rules were written and rewritten. Only they know. Only the rules writers/arbiters can really answer my question.
And again, perhaps this is just because I'm a lawyer and so my brain is rewired wrong, but what normally happens when you have a rule that appears not to have contemplated a particular scenario is that you have to judicially resolve the ambiguity. Sometimes the resolutions make so much sense that legislatures just leave them alone because they are good rules to use. Sometimes they make so much sense that legislatures pass new laws specifically to codify the judicial rule. And on occasion, the legislature says no, you got that wrong, here's what we REALLY meant and they pass laws that explicitly cover the situation, but with a different rule.
I suppose in this case we are appealing for the judicial ruling from the rules arbiters. And if there is an errata on this for haste, that makes it the legislature acting, though really, they are the same body in this case.
Something I did want to comment on, and perhaps this is just because I'm a lawyer and so I'm used to having to deal with applying written rules to situations that were not originally contemplated when the rules were written.
It is clear that the original RAW did not contemplate the effects of haste on zombies - or rather, if they did, perhaps they did not need to say much because haste, as it was written (and at the same times zombies were written) gave an extra action, so nothing needed to be said. Thus, 3.0 is born.
Then through playtesting, it was discovered that giving an extra action causes problems where spellcasters are concerned, so they nerf haste to "fix" that. Probably at the time NOBODY was thinking about zombies and the implications it would have for hasting them - so even if they contemplated zombies originally, that original contemplation was turned ambiguous by the change in haste done for entirely different reasons.
In other words, the way things worked before, it was simple and straighforward - add or subtract actions for slow, zombies, haste, etc. But then they decided adding actions that allowed spellcasters to cast two spells in a round was "broken" so in an attempt to "fix" that they made a change without contemplating the ambiguity and lack of clarity that would create.
That's just a hypothetical - I have no idea what the designers were thinking when the rules were written and rewritten. Only they know. Only the rules writers/arbiters can really answer my question.
And again, perhaps this is just because I'm a lawyer and so my brain is rewired wrong, but what normally happens when you have a rule that appears not to have contemplated a particular scenario is that you have to judicially resolve the ambiguity. Sometimes the resolutions make so much sense that legislatures just leave them alone because they are good rules to use. Sometimes they make so much sense that legislatures pass new laws specifically to codify the judicial rule. And on occasion, the legislature says no, you got that wrong, here's what we REALLY meant and they pass laws that explicitly cover the situation, but with a different rule.
I suppose in this case we are appealing for the judicial ruling from the rules arbiters. And if there is an errata on this for haste, that makes it the legislature acting, though really, they are the same body in this case.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Altalazar said:
That's clear? How so?
I'm not sure how "Zombies are creatures, and Haste's effect on a creature is X" is an obvious example of ambiguity, yet it can be 'clear' that designers never thought about zombies when nothing is mentioned either way...?
What ambiguity? What lack of clarity? You're imagining a problem where none exists.
If I say "I'm allergic to fruit, but I can eat broccoli", I shouldn't have to specify "... my allergy to fruit includes green apples" just because broccoli is green and apples are green. My original statement was clear - I'm allergic to fruit. No exceptions need to be stated, because it's all fruit that I'm allergic to. Just because I didn't mention green apples specifically doesn't make the original statement ambiguous.
-Hyp.
Last edited:
Herzog
Adventurer
There is no ambiguity in the rules.
I hope we can agree on that somewhere in the near future, or else we will all repeat ourselves until eternity.
There is only the question whether the RAW is consistent with the intention of the designers.
That is, with the current ruleset, the way 'Haste' works and the way Zombies are statted, what would be the intention of the designers in how to apply Haste to Zombies.
When we have that clarified, and the RAW is not in agreement with that intention, then an errata is in order.
Herzog
I hope we can agree on that somewhere in the near future, or else we will all repeat ourselves until eternity.
There is only the question whether the RAW is consistent with the intention of the designers.
That is, with the current ruleset, the way 'Haste' works and the way Zombies are statted, what would be the intention of the designers in how to apply Haste to Zombies.
When we have that clarified, and the RAW is not in agreement with that intention, then an errata is in order.
Herzog
