Undead, as monsters or as templates?

[catsclaw227]

How would you like to see your monsters? As undead, per the 3.x versions of ghouls, ghasts, etc? Or would you like them as templates?

Also if you choose a mix of both which types would you like to see as a template, and which types would you like to see as a monster?

 

[I'm A Banana]

A mix is good.

Simple templates (with examples) are decent for "generic" undead -- skeletons, zombies, "spirits," etc.

Specific examples are better for complex undead (or undead with complex D&D rules) -- vampire, lich, etc.

Though I think ideally the complex undead would be better modeled with a sort of multiclassing/paragon path/epic destiny, really.

 

[Cabled]

It has always made more sense to me that they be templates, and even back into the 1e days there were skeletons and zombies in published modules that were taken from animal, ogre and giant stock...in effect, templates even then though we didn't have that term to apply to them yet.

Having said that, most templates have been more trouble than they were worth to me, and I don't really care which flavor they come in, in practice.

 

[Rechan]

While templates make more sense, the 3.5 templates don't really add much to the equation.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Some creatures classified as undead don't come directly from one living creature. Nightshades are a good example, as are amalgamated undead creatures such as boneyards and undead creatures that don't preserve much of the original, like skulking cysts and some other LM types.

In general, I think any undead that comes directly from a living creature should be a template. I like all the crazy skeletons, vampires, etc. you can do with the current rules.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Templates dagnabit!

 

[ThirdWizard]

I prefer individual monsters for the vast majority of undead. How many 3e undead templates were there anyway, compared to stated monsters? The MMs & Libris Mortis had some really great undead statted out in them, and only a handful of templates really stood out to me (basically vampire and lich). The full monsters were always far more interesting on the whole. I wonder where all these great template undead people are thinking of came from.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I prefer individual monsters. Templates are one of the things that I thought were a good idea at the time. Now any creature in the game could be made into a zombie if you wanted to! Unfortunately, it more often ended up with me playing adventures with creatures like the Mummified Fire Giant(immune to cold AND fire and being mummified added extra strength to the giant).

In most cases it doesn't matter if this mummy is an elf, human, dwarf, dragonborn...or whatever. In the end they are all mummies and the differences are a couple of stat points. There shouldn't be a 12 step process to creating a mummy in order to run it as an enemy. Beyond that, templates are normally only applied to created powerful combos.

 

[Stogoe]

Monsters, definitely. The stats for a gnoll zombie and an orc zombie are pretty much the same. It's all in how I describe it to my players.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Monsters, by and large. I don't care about the differences between an elf zombie and a dwarf zombie, much less elf vs. eladrin zombies. I don't mind templates for "Hero units" like Death Knights and Liches, but 9 out of 10 times I want a monster, not a process.