How to balance a monster modification (zombie)?Race Creation/Modification in D&D 3.5How to balance a custom Shadow Skip power?How much should this Infectious Zombie homebrew change a zombie's challenge rating?Will changing the damage type of some spells break my game?How to balance a dragonborn breath for a mountain dwarf?Are there official guidelines on 5e feat creation or modification?How to balance the Zealot in a setting without resurrection?“Episode Boss” encounter balance assessmentDoes this Zombie Swarm Homebrew require a grapple check?Is this modification of the Vicious Mockery cantrip overpowered?

Is it necessary to use pronouns with the verb "essere"?

How to make money from a browser who sees 5 seconds into the future of any web page?

Is my low blitz game drawing rate at www.chess.com an indicator that I am weak in chess?

Is this toilet slogan correct usage of the English language?

Is there a RAID 0 Equivalent for RAM?

Does Doodling or Improvising on the Piano Have Any Benefits?

Is it allowed to activate the ability of multiple planeswalkers in a single turn?

Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes?

How to preserve electronics (computers, iPads and phones) for hundreds of years

Giving feedback to someone without sounding prejudiced

US tourist/student visa

Quoting Keynes in a lecture

Are Captain Marvel's powers affected by Thanos breaking the Tesseract and claiming the stone?

Can I cause damage to electrical appliances by unplugging them when they are turned on?

Taxes on Dividends in a Roth IRA

Why Shazam when there is already Superman?

What is going on with gets(stdin) on the site coderbyte?

"before" and "want" for the same systemd service?

Does the reader need to like the PoV character?

What fields between the rationals and the reals allow a good notion of 2D distance?

Biological Blimps: Propulsion

Does grappling negate Mirror Image?

Is there any evidence that Cleopatra and Caesarion considered fleeing to India to escape the Romans?

Which was the first story featuring espers?



How to balance a monster modification (zombie)?


Race Creation/Modification in D&D 3.5How to balance a custom Shadow Skip power?How much should this Infectious Zombie homebrew change a zombie's challenge rating?Will changing the damage type of some spells break my game?How to balance a dragonborn breath for a mountain dwarf?Are there official guidelines on 5e feat creation or modification?How to balance the Zealot in a setting without resurrection?“Episode Boss” encounter balance assessmentDoes this Zombie Swarm Homebrew require a grapple check?Is this modification of the Vicious Mockery cantrip overpowered?













8












$begingroup$


I am DM'ing a campaign called "Army of the Damned" based on Magic the Gathering: Innistrad in which a horde of zombies is attacking a town. In the 5e Monster Manual, zombies have poison immunity but no vulnerabilities. I incorrectly assumed prior that they had fire vulnerability and allowed my party to set up some flaming oil traps to deal with them. It would still work without the vulnerability, but it seems reasonable to me that they would be vulnerable to fire and possibly radiant.



How can I balance the zombie monster to be vulnerable to fire? What about adding radiant?



Alternately, as a DM, am I looking at this the wrong way?



To be clear, I am trying to maintain the CR of the zombies in question. I was not aware the DMG has a section on modifying monsters, as I have been reading it in tandem with my campaign, believing that my experience as a player would be enough to keep me from massively screwing up; that's held true so far. I will look into that tonight, but I would appreciate any experienced advice on how to do so. My second question still remains: should I really be doing this? What are the potential drawbacks?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Sean Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This could be a bit opinion-based. Are you asking how you can keep the zombie balanced at the same CR if you add fire vulnerability? (And do you need to do that? I mean....being set on fire can ruin anyone's day, vulnerability or not!)
    $endgroup$
    – PJRZ
    Mar 18 at 14:48






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Have you read the chapter on modifying monsters in the DMG? If so, which parts of it are not clear? It not, consider starting there and see if you have any follow up questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Erik
    Mar 18 at 14:52















8












$begingroup$


I am DM'ing a campaign called "Army of the Damned" based on Magic the Gathering: Innistrad in which a horde of zombies is attacking a town. In the 5e Monster Manual, zombies have poison immunity but no vulnerabilities. I incorrectly assumed prior that they had fire vulnerability and allowed my party to set up some flaming oil traps to deal with them. It would still work without the vulnerability, but it seems reasonable to me that they would be vulnerable to fire and possibly radiant.



How can I balance the zombie monster to be vulnerable to fire? What about adding radiant?



Alternately, as a DM, am I looking at this the wrong way?



To be clear, I am trying to maintain the CR of the zombies in question. I was not aware the DMG has a section on modifying monsters, as I have been reading it in tandem with my campaign, believing that my experience as a player would be enough to keep me from massively screwing up; that's held true so far. I will look into that tonight, but I would appreciate any experienced advice on how to do so. My second question still remains: should I really be doing this? What are the potential drawbacks?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Sean Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This could be a bit opinion-based. Are you asking how you can keep the zombie balanced at the same CR if you add fire vulnerability? (And do you need to do that? I mean....being set on fire can ruin anyone's day, vulnerability or not!)
    $endgroup$
    – PJRZ
    Mar 18 at 14:48






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Have you read the chapter on modifying monsters in the DMG? If so, which parts of it are not clear? It not, consider starting there and see if you have any follow up questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Erik
    Mar 18 at 14:52













8












8








8


1



$begingroup$


I am DM'ing a campaign called "Army of the Damned" based on Magic the Gathering: Innistrad in which a horde of zombies is attacking a town. In the 5e Monster Manual, zombies have poison immunity but no vulnerabilities. I incorrectly assumed prior that they had fire vulnerability and allowed my party to set up some flaming oil traps to deal with them. It would still work without the vulnerability, but it seems reasonable to me that they would be vulnerable to fire and possibly radiant.



How can I balance the zombie monster to be vulnerable to fire? What about adding radiant?



Alternately, as a DM, am I looking at this the wrong way?



To be clear, I am trying to maintain the CR of the zombies in question. I was not aware the DMG has a section on modifying monsters, as I have been reading it in tandem with my campaign, believing that my experience as a player would be enough to keep me from massively screwing up; that's held true so far. I will look into that tonight, but I would appreciate any experienced advice on how to do so. My second question still remains: should I really be doing this? What are the potential drawbacks?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Sean Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I am DM'ing a campaign called "Army of the Damned" based on Magic the Gathering: Innistrad in which a horde of zombies is attacking a town. In the 5e Monster Manual, zombies have poison immunity but no vulnerabilities. I incorrectly assumed prior that they had fire vulnerability and allowed my party to set up some flaming oil traps to deal with them. It would still work without the vulnerability, but it seems reasonable to me that they would be vulnerable to fire and possibly radiant.



How can I balance the zombie monster to be vulnerable to fire? What about adding radiant?



Alternately, as a DM, am I looking at this the wrong way?



To be clear, I am trying to maintain the CR of the zombies in question. I was not aware the DMG has a section on modifying monsters, as I have been reading it in tandem with my campaign, believing that my experience as a player would be enough to keep me from massively screwing up; that's held true so far. I will look into that tonight, but I would appreciate any experienced advice on how to do so. My second question still remains: should I really be doing this? What are the potential drawbacks?







dnd-5e homebrew






share|improve this question









New contributor




Sean Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Sean Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 18 at 15:29









Rubiksmoose

58.8k10284435




58.8k10284435






New contributor




Sean Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Mar 18 at 14:41









Sean ScottSean Scott

1436




1436




New contributor




Sean Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Sean Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Sean Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This could be a bit opinion-based. Are you asking how you can keep the zombie balanced at the same CR if you add fire vulnerability? (And do you need to do that? I mean....being set on fire can ruin anyone's day, vulnerability or not!)
    $endgroup$
    – PJRZ
    Mar 18 at 14:48






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Have you read the chapter on modifying monsters in the DMG? If so, which parts of it are not clear? It not, consider starting there and see if you have any follow up questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Erik
    Mar 18 at 14:52












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This could be a bit opinion-based. Are you asking how you can keep the zombie balanced at the same CR if you add fire vulnerability? (And do you need to do that? I mean....being set on fire can ruin anyone's day, vulnerability or not!)
    $endgroup$
    – PJRZ
    Mar 18 at 14:48






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Have you read the chapter on modifying monsters in the DMG? If so, which parts of it are not clear? It not, consider starting there and see if you have any follow up questions.
    $endgroup$
    – Erik
    Mar 18 at 14:52







2




2




$begingroup$
This could be a bit opinion-based. Are you asking how you can keep the zombie balanced at the same CR if you add fire vulnerability? (And do you need to do that? I mean....being set on fire can ruin anyone's day, vulnerability or not!)
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
Mar 18 at 14:48




$begingroup$
This could be a bit opinion-based. Are you asking how you can keep the zombie balanced at the same CR if you add fire vulnerability? (And do you need to do that? I mean....being set on fire can ruin anyone's day, vulnerability or not!)
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
Mar 18 at 14:48




4




4




$begingroup$
Have you read the chapter on modifying monsters in the DMG? If so, which parts of it are not clear? It not, consider starting there and see if you have any follow up questions.
$endgroup$
– Erik
Mar 18 at 14:52




$begingroup$
Have you read the chapter on modifying monsters in the DMG? If so, which parts of it are not clear? It not, consider starting there and see if you have any follow up questions.
$endgroup$
– Erik
Mar 18 at 14:52










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















22












$begingroup$

Because it feels right to you and is thematic to your campaign, I would encourage you to stick by your ruling and keep the modified zombies. As a player, I find variant creatures fun, and ret-cons a little bit immersion-breaking.



Assuming all of your players have ready access to fire damage, that's an effective halving of the zombies' hit points. In the Creating a Monster section of Chapter 9, the DMG notes "Vulnerabilities don’t significantly affect a monster’s challenge rating, unless a monster has vulnerabilities to multiple damage types that are prevalent [...]" — and in my experience with customized monsters, when players know and are prepared for the vulnerability, that's exactly the noted "unless". So, in this case, the change would alter the effective CR, unless you do something to compensate.



One easy way to leave the appearance of fire vulnerability but keep the CR is to raise the monsters' actual hit points. Once your players realize that fire is the key, you can be sure they'll use fire whenever they can, which means the effective hit points are lower than the actual ones (as described in the DMG in "step 9" of Creating a Monster Stat Block). Exactly how much to adjust by is a judgment call. If the party is only sprinkling some fire into their attacks, going from, say, 22 to 33 might be right. If they've figured out some way to always attack with fire, go ahead and just double to 44. (This is still within the range of hit points for a CR ¼ creature.) If you want them to also be directly vulnerable to radiant damage, take that into account, of course.



Zombies' hit points are already on the low end for their CR, because Undead Fortitude keeps them up and lurching. (This isn't just presumption; from the Monster Features table, this is the equivalent of additional "effective hit points".) So, another approach would be to beef up that feature — perhaps make the save DC just "damage taken" rather than "5 + damage taken". But this is a less predictable than the raw HP approach, so I don't suggest it without some playtesting and tweaking. If you also want this feature to also be shut down by fire damage, that'd be a significant additional weakening — I'd be inclined to just leave it as it is. (As an aside, there should be an in-game way for the players to learn about this bit of non-obvious lore — it takes holy fire to really make a difference.)






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – mxyzplk
    Mar 18 at 18:21


















9












$begingroup$

You're overthinking it.



Zombies are goopy flesh, so there's no thematic reason for them to have a vulnerability to fire. They already have a radiant "vulnerability" (little 'v') baked into their Undead Fortitude ability.



If your issue is what to do with your players moving forward you can just tell them "guys I misread/misremembered and zombies aren't Vulnerable to fire". They should be understanding about it. That doesn't detract from the efficacy of their plan before. Fire still hurts and fire traps will still cause most things to have a bad day.



Vulnerability = weaker zombies



If you give them fire Vulnerability, it's going to make zombies less of a challenge. Period. I don't think it's a whole step from CR 1/4 down to CR 1/8 (see below)*, but fire damage is pretty easy to come by and your mileage may vary.




*I don't claim to be great at CR calculation, but a vulnerability does not denote an entire defensive CR step-down. Even if it did, it would only incur a total CR change of a half-step.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I think that is an improvement.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    2 days ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






Sean Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143375%2fhow-to-balance-a-monster-modification-zombie%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









22












$begingroup$

Because it feels right to you and is thematic to your campaign, I would encourage you to stick by your ruling and keep the modified zombies. As a player, I find variant creatures fun, and ret-cons a little bit immersion-breaking.



Assuming all of your players have ready access to fire damage, that's an effective halving of the zombies' hit points. In the Creating a Monster section of Chapter 9, the DMG notes "Vulnerabilities don’t significantly affect a monster’s challenge rating, unless a monster has vulnerabilities to multiple damage types that are prevalent [...]" — and in my experience with customized monsters, when players know and are prepared for the vulnerability, that's exactly the noted "unless". So, in this case, the change would alter the effective CR, unless you do something to compensate.



One easy way to leave the appearance of fire vulnerability but keep the CR is to raise the monsters' actual hit points. Once your players realize that fire is the key, you can be sure they'll use fire whenever they can, which means the effective hit points are lower than the actual ones (as described in the DMG in "step 9" of Creating a Monster Stat Block). Exactly how much to adjust by is a judgment call. If the party is only sprinkling some fire into their attacks, going from, say, 22 to 33 might be right. If they've figured out some way to always attack with fire, go ahead and just double to 44. (This is still within the range of hit points for a CR ¼ creature.) If you want them to also be directly vulnerable to radiant damage, take that into account, of course.



Zombies' hit points are already on the low end for their CR, because Undead Fortitude keeps them up and lurching. (This isn't just presumption; from the Monster Features table, this is the equivalent of additional "effective hit points".) So, another approach would be to beef up that feature — perhaps make the save DC just "damage taken" rather than "5 + damage taken". But this is a less predictable than the raw HP approach, so I don't suggest it without some playtesting and tweaking. If you also want this feature to also be shut down by fire damage, that'd be a significant additional weakening — I'd be inclined to just leave it as it is. (As an aside, there should be an in-game way for the players to learn about this bit of non-obvious lore — it takes holy fire to really make a difference.)






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – mxyzplk
    Mar 18 at 18:21















22












$begingroup$

Because it feels right to you and is thematic to your campaign, I would encourage you to stick by your ruling and keep the modified zombies. As a player, I find variant creatures fun, and ret-cons a little bit immersion-breaking.



Assuming all of your players have ready access to fire damage, that's an effective halving of the zombies' hit points. In the Creating a Monster section of Chapter 9, the DMG notes "Vulnerabilities don’t significantly affect a monster’s challenge rating, unless a monster has vulnerabilities to multiple damage types that are prevalent [...]" — and in my experience with customized monsters, when players know and are prepared for the vulnerability, that's exactly the noted "unless". So, in this case, the change would alter the effective CR, unless you do something to compensate.



One easy way to leave the appearance of fire vulnerability but keep the CR is to raise the monsters' actual hit points. Once your players realize that fire is the key, you can be sure they'll use fire whenever they can, which means the effective hit points are lower than the actual ones (as described in the DMG in "step 9" of Creating a Monster Stat Block). Exactly how much to adjust by is a judgment call. If the party is only sprinkling some fire into their attacks, going from, say, 22 to 33 might be right. If they've figured out some way to always attack with fire, go ahead and just double to 44. (This is still within the range of hit points for a CR ¼ creature.) If you want them to also be directly vulnerable to radiant damage, take that into account, of course.



Zombies' hit points are already on the low end for their CR, because Undead Fortitude keeps them up and lurching. (This isn't just presumption; from the Monster Features table, this is the equivalent of additional "effective hit points".) So, another approach would be to beef up that feature — perhaps make the save DC just "damage taken" rather than "5 + damage taken". But this is a less predictable than the raw HP approach, so I don't suggest it without some playtesting and tweaking. If you also want this feature to also be shut down by fire damage, that'd be a significant additional weakening — I'd be inclined to just leave it as it is. (As an aside, there should be an in-game way for the players to learn about this bit of non-obvious lore — it takes holy fire to really make a difference.)






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – mxyzplk
    Mar 18 at 18:21













22












22








22





$begingroup$

Because it feels right to you and is thematic to your campaign, I would encourage you to stick by your ruling and keep the modified zombies. As a player, I find variant creatures fun, and ret-cons a little bit immersion-breaking.



Assuming all of your players have ready access to fire damage, that's an effective halving of the zombies' hit points. In the Creating a Monster section of Chapter 9, the DMG notes "Vulnerabilities don’t significantly affect a monster’s challenge rating, unless a monster has vulnerabilities to multiple damage types that are prevalent [...]" — and in my experience with customized monsters, when players know and are prepared for the vulnerability, that's exactly the noted "unless". So, in this case, the change would alter the effective CR, unless you do something to compensate.



One easy way to leave the appearance of fire vulnerability but keep the CR is to raise the monsters' actual hit points. Once your players realize that fire is the key, you can be sure they'll use fire whenever they can, which means the effective hit points are lower than the actual ones (as described in the DMG in "step 9" of Creating a Monster Stat Block). Exactly how much to adjust by is a judgment call. If the party is only sprinkling some fire into their attacks, going from, say, 22 to 33 might be right. If they've figured out some way to always attack with fire, go ahead and just double to 44. (This is still within the range of hit points for a CR ¼ creature.) If you want them to also be directly vulnerable to radiant damage, take that into account, of course.



Zombies' hit points are already on the low end for their CR, because Undead Fortitude keeps them up and lurching. (This isn't just presumption; from the Monster Features table, this is the equivalent of additional "effective hit points".) So, another approach would be to beef up that feature — perhaps make the save DC just "damage taken" rather than "5 + damage taken". But this is a less predictable than the raw HP approach, so I don't suggest it without some playtesting and tweaking. If you also want this feature to also be shut down by fire damage, that'd be a significant additional weakening — I'd be inclined to just leave it as it is. (As an aside, there should be an in-game way for the players to learn about this bit of non-obvious lore — it takes holy fire to really make a difference.)






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Because it feels right to you and is thematic to your campaign, I would encourage you to stick by your ruling and keep the modified zombies. As a player, I find variant creatures fun, and ret-cons a little bit immersion-breaking.



Assuming all of your players have ready access to fire damage, that's an effective halving of the zombies' hit points. In the Creating a Monster section of Chapter 9, the DMG notes "Vulnerabilities don’t significantly affect a monster’s challenge rating, unless a monster has vulnerabilities to multiple damage types that are prevalent [...]" — and in my experience with customized monsters, when players know and are prepared for the vulnerability, that's exactly the noted "unless". So, in this case, the change would alter the effective CR, unless you do something to compensate.



One easy way to leave the appearance of fire vulnerability but keep the CR is to raise the monsters' actual hit points. Once your players realize that fire is the key, you can be sure they'll use fire whenever they can, which means the effective hit points are lower than the actual ones (as described in the DMG in "step 9" of Creating a Monster Stat Block). Exactly how much to adjust by is a judgment call. If the party is only sprinkling some fire into their attacks, going from, say, 22 to 33 might be right. If they've figured out some way to always attack with fire, go ahead and just double to 44. (This is still within the range of hit points for a CR ¼ creature.) If you want them to also be directly vulnerable to radiant damage, take that into account, of course.



Zombies' hit points are already on the low end for their CR, because Undead Fortitude keeps them up and lurching. (This isn't just presumption; from the Monster Features table, this is the equivalent of additional "effective hit points".) So, another approach would be to beef up that feature — perhaps make the save DC just "damage taken" rather than "5 + damage taken". But this is a less predictable than the raw HP approach, so I don't suggest it without some playtesting and tweaking. If you also want this feature to also be shut down by fire damage, that'd be a significant additional weakening — I'd be inclined to just leave it as it is. (As an aside, there should be an in-game way for the players to learn about this bit of non-obvious lore — it takes holy fire to really make a difference.)







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 18 at 18:53

























answered Mar 18 at 15:50









mattdmmattdm

17.1k878128




17.1k878128











  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – mxyzplk
    Mar 18 at 18:21
















  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – mxyzplk
    Mar 18 at 18:21















$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– mxyzplk
Mar 18 at 18:21




$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– mxyzplk
Mar 18 at 18:21













9












$begingroup$

You're overthinking it.



Zombies are goopy flesh, so there's no thematic reason for them to have a vulnerability to fire. They already have a radiant "vulnerability" (little 'v') baked into their Undead Fortitude ability.



If your issue is what to do with your players moving forward you can just tell them "guys I misread/misremembered and zombies aren't Vulnerable to fire". They should be understanding about it. That doesn't detract from the efficacy of their plan before. Fire still hurts and fire traps will still cause most things to have a bad day.



Vulnerability = weaker zombies



If you give them fire Vulnerability, it's going to make zombies less of a challenge. Period. I don't think it's a whole step from CR 1/4 down to CR 1/8 (see below)*, but fire damage is pretty easy to come by and your mileage may vary.




*I don't claim to be great at CR calculation, but a vulnerability does not denote an entire defensive CR step-down. Even if it did, it would only incur a total CR change of a half-step.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I think that is an improvement.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    2 days ago















9












$begingroup$

You're overthinking it.



Zombies are goopy flesh, so there's no thematic reason for them to have a vulnerability to fire. They already have a radiant "vulnerability" (little 'v') baked into their Undead Fortitude ability.



If your issue is what to do with your players moving forward you can just tell them "guys I misread/misremembered and zombies aren't Vulnerable to fire". They should be understanding about it. That doesn't detract from the efficacy of their plan before. Fire still hurts and fire traps will still cause most things to have a bad day.



Vulnerability = weaker zombies



If you give them fire Vulnerability, it's going to make zombies less of a challenge. Period. I don't think it's a whole step from CR 1/4 down to CR 1/8 (see below)*, but fire damage is pretty easy to come by and your mileage may vary.




*I don't claim to be great at CR calculation, but a vulnerability does not denote an entire defensive CR step-down. Even if it did, it would only incur a total CR change of a half-step.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I think that is an improvement.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    2 days ago













9












9








9





$begingroup$

You're overthinking it.



Zombies are goopy flesh, so there's no thematic reason for them to have a vulnerability to fire. They already have a radiant "vulnerability" (little 'v') baked into their Undead Fortitude ability.



If your issue is what to do with your players moving forward you can just tell them "guys I misread/misremembered and zombies aren't Vulnerable to fire". They should be understanding about it. That doesn't detract from the efficacy of their plan before. Fire still hurts and fire traps will still cause most things to have a bad day.



Vulnerability = weaker zombies



If you give them fire Vulnerability, it's going to make zombies less of a challenge. Period. I don't think it's a whole step from CR 1/4 down to CR 1/8 (see below)*, but fire damage is pretty easy to come by and your mileage may vary.




*I don't claim to be great at CR calculation, but a vulnerability does not denote an entire defensive CR step-down. Even if it did, it would only incur a total CR change of a half-step.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



You're overthinking it.



Zombies are goopy flesh, so there's no thematic reason for them to have a vulnerability to fire. They already have a radiant "vulnerability" (little 'v') baked into their Undead Fortitude ability.



If your issue is what to do with your players moving forward you can just tell them "guys I misread/misremembered and zombies aren't Vulnerable to fire". They should be understanding about it. That doesn't detract from the efficacy of their plan before. Fire still hurts and fire traps will still cause most things to have a bad day.



Vulnerability = weaker zombies



If you give them fire Vulnerability, it's going to make zombies less of a challenge. Period. I don't think it's a whole step from CR 1/4 down to CR 1/8 (see below)*, but fire damage is pretty easy to come by and your mileage may vary.




*I don't claim to be great at CR calculation, but a vulnerability does not denote an entire defensive CR step-down. Even if it did, it would only incur a total CR change of a half-step.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered Mar 18 at 15:15









goodguy5goodguy5

9,27223476




9,27223476











  • $begingroup$
    I think that is an improvement.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    2 days ago
















  • $begingroup$
    I think that is an improvement.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    2 days ago















$begingroup$
I think that is an improvement.
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
2 days ago




$begingroup$
I think that is an improvement.
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
2 days ago










Sean Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















Sean Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Sean Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











Sean Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143375%2fhow-to-balance-a-monster-modification-zombie%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?