Favored Enemy Undead, subtypes

[Hawken]

I'm running a Ravenloft campaign (starting with EtCR), with players starting out at 6th and eventually working their way up to 10th before their final trip to the castle to confront Strahd.

Because so many, if not most, of the encounters involve undead, I've decided to require subtypes for Favored Enemy undead, just as if Humanoid or Outsider were selected.

I've come up with the following subtypes:
Skeletal (includes all skeletons, variant skeletons, etc.)
Spectral (includes wraiths, spectres and any incorporeal undead, but not ghosts)
Vampires (includes all variant vampires, vampire spawn, vampyres, etc.)
Ancient Dead (includes mummies and variants)
Ghosts (includes all ghosts and variants)
Hungry Dead (includes hungry zombies, ghouls, ghasts, wights and such)
Liches (includes all liches, lich variants, etc.)
Zombies (includes all zombies, zombie variants)

I've also allowed that the characters with FEs can make Survival checks in place of the appropriate Knowledge checks when used to identify their FE or gain a bit of specific knowledge about their FE.

Only two characters in the game have Favored Enemy; one an actual ranger, the other a druid variant that gets Favored Enemies. The ranger is already crying foul and wanting to switch to a Fighter saying that I've nerfed FEs now.

What do you all think? Have I nerfed it? Is it unfair? Weak? Or perhaps interesting? Does anyone else have any ideas that might be better? Or maybe different enough that my players won't feel cheated?


Personally, I've always been of a mind that undead are too different to just be lumped together under one classification. Especially in Ravenloft where there are so many varieties of undead, it seems silly that one FE would grant the character such bonuses over ALL undead.

 

[Stormborn]

In a campaign where the opponents were guaranteed to be a wide variety of undead on a regular basis I would think that its fair to differentiate them for the purposes of Favored Enemy. If that also means that there will be less of other types of enemies. If the party were to fight a wide variety of creatures regularly I might feel cheated as well.

I might also alter your list somewhat, not differentiate types of incoporeal undead for one thing.

 

[Hawken]

I put some thought into the subtypes, but largely, the subtypes were made based on the Van Richten books. Ghosts got their own, as did liches and vampires. That's why I made categories for those singular types.

I could combine those two types but ghosts are a bit different from wraiths and spectres and such in Ravenloft and there are a few types of ghosts that are harmless--not something that could be said for things like wraiths. That's why I thought it worth the separation.

Of course, Vampires is a good choice, but there are quite a few other types and I was going to use some 3.X edition Ravenloft undead that I haven't had a chance to use before now as well.

I also made the house rule about the Survival/Knowledge thing so they wouldn't feel cheated. So, they could get a little something extra to balance out the fact that they no longer get their bonuses on ALL undead.

 

[Ruslanchik]

I agree with the this idea if the PCs will be facing undead frequently. This does seem to be an awful lot of categories, though.

I understand sticking to another's system, but you don't want to nerf the class ability too much. I would combine ghosts and spectral as incorporeal. I would also combine liches and mummies as magical undead (or something). They aren't too similar, but those two groups would occur so rarely in a game that no one would ever choose those options.

I like the idea of vampires and zombies having their own categories.

This system will work well, I think, and will give your players the oppotunity to RP their characters a little better (a vampire hunter has more character in my mind than an undead hunter). That will make the reduciton in power seem worthwhile.

 

[Hawken]

Hmm, how about...

Skeletal Dead (as above)
Spectral Dead (as above, but includes ghosts)
Hungry Dead (as above)
Preserved--for lack of a better name--Dead (includes liches, mummies and any undead where souls or body parts are preserved in a phylactery or other container outside of the body).
Zombies (as above)
Vampires (as above)

That knocks it down to 6 subtypes from 8 and covers all the types of undead that I can think of off-hand.

 

[Stormborn]

Thats better, but its still going to be a matter of frequency in the campaign. I know in EtCR there are werewolves and other things that might cause a ranger forced into choosing from a list of undead to feel cheated.

If you really want an Undead Hunter class in the game then I suggest allowing for an alternate Ranger as an option but still allow the regular Ranger, but remove undead from the list of favored enemies.

The Undead Hunter would be like the regular Ranger but with a few changes such as detect undead at will and a more focused spell list. Whereas the Ranger is associated with Druids, the Undead Hunter could be assoicated with Clerics of deities that hate undead.

 

[Notmousse]

That's an obscene nerfing!

Personally since undead are *immune* to crits, massive damage, and a host of other things leaving them as a singular option is not going to make a Ranger much more powerful than they are in a 'normal' campaign.

If you're (un)dead set on forcing a split then I'd make it a few broad choices as follows:

Incorporeal undead = pretty obvious.
Created/summoned Undead = Skeletons, zombies, and your category of 'hungry undead'. AKA the small fry undead.
Greater Undead = Vampires, Liches, Mummies, that kind of crap.

BTW Why were zombies in two categories? Do zombies change category once they've had a full meal?

 

[Khuxan]

That's an obscene nerfing!

Personally since undead are *immune* to crits, massive damage, and a host of other things leaving them as a singular option is not going to make a Ranger much more powerful than they are in a 'normal' campaign.

If you're (un)dead set on forcing a split then I'd make it a few broad choices as follows:

Incorporeal undead = pretty obvious.
Created/summoned Undead = Skeletons, zombies, and your category of 'hungry undead'. AKA the small fry undead.
Greater Undead = Vampires, Liches, Mummies, that kind of crap.

I don't think it's a good idea to have (effectively) Weak Undead and Strong Undead as options, because if you choose the first your ability's useless at high levels and if you choose the latter your ability's useless at low levels. I do agree there should be around three categories:

Incorporeal Undead (killing a malevolant ghost is much the same as killing a wraith.)
Vampires, Mummies, Ghouls, Ghasts and Zombies (fleshy)
Skeletons and Liches (skeletal)

If you face a lot of vampires, it would make sense (and balance the categories) to put them in one of their own.

BTW Why were zombies in two categories? Do zombies change category once they've had a full meal?

It's my guess hungry zombies are a specific monster.

 

[Hawken]

Thats better, but its still going to be a matter of frequency in the campaign. I know in EtCR there are werewolves and other things that might cause a ranger forced into choosing from a list of undead to feel cheated.

Yes, there are other monsters, but they are much fewer in frequency than undead. And in a "typical" Ravenloft setting, undead are often as varied as any humanoids, hence one reason for the breakdown. Knowing how to fight vampires is just as different from fighting ghosts as having FE dwarf and FE elf.

Personally since undead are *immune* to crits, massive damage, and a host of other things leaving them as a singular option is not going to make a Ranger much more powerful than they are in a 'normal' campaign.

Actually it would make them quite powerful. As 6th level characters, they have a +4 bonus against undead, and once they get to 10th, that goes up to +6. Against probably 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the encounters in the game, if not more once they start hunting around the castle. That's a significant bonus considering it would apply to ALL those monsters.

BTW Why were zombies in two categories? Do zombies change category once they've had a full meal?

No. But the Hungry Dead category I was thinking of for those that actually eat or have to eat others--kind of like the Return of the Living Dead zombies ("Braiiinnnnssss!!"), and keeping them separated along that kind of theme rather than with the shambling slow zombies, the plague zombies or whatever else. I'm still not 100% on the categories, that's why I'm looking for ideas.

I thought 6 would be a decent number of categories, but maybe 4 would be better.

How about:

Infused Undead (Vampires, liches, mummies, those with innate or learned magical abilities).
Incorporeal Undead (obvious).
Hungry Dead (most corporeal undead--zombies, wights, ghouls, etc).
Risen Dead (the mindless undead created by Animate Dead and any other "weak" undead).

 

[Notmousse]

Actually it would make them quite powerful. As 6th level characters, they have a +4 bonus against undead, and once they get to 10th, that goes up to +6.

While it is a decent enough bonus in damage it's going to be countered by the vast number of zombies with DR, the limited usefulness of many ranger spells (of which several are concerned with crits), and the MAD rangers have always had.

While yes this is overall a power boost I put forth that Ranger's are a weak enough class that such a boost is merely going to take the ranger from a weaker class to a moderate class.

No. But the Hungry Dead category I was thinking of for those that actually eat or have to eat others

I was just fooling around. But it really would seem odd to have zombies in two different groups.

I thought 6 would be a decent number of categories, but maybe 4 would be better.

Not a bad compromise overall I guiess.