I'm comparing NPC human commoner zombies with no equipment or armor to human 1st level Fighters with typical hand weapons, leather armor and a shield, and wondering if I am missing something or imagining things wrong.

The zombies have a "slam" attack which I read represents just hitting with their arms?

The combat differences look like (for average Strength anyway) the zombie has about twice as many hit points, about the same attack modifier (+2), and does about the same damage (about 1d6+1 versus 1d8). with the only real disadvantage for the zombie being a bit lower Armor Class.

That seems to me like in a physical fight, each unarmed commoner zombie is about as capable as an armed/equipped 1st level Fighter, just by swinging its arms?

Is there a reason for that I'm missing, or am I just being overly literal for D&D?

Empowered by dark magic? What is a good level for PCs to meet these zombies? It may simply be that they are, for whatever reasons, intended not to be a really early threat? How do they compare to a level 2 or 3 fighter?

Yeah it's definitely the whole "empowered by dark magics with unnatural strength and resilience" bit.  In D&D zombies are the result of animating magic, not anything else.  The magic holds together flesh which otherwise would fall apart and imbues them with characteristics they may have lacked in mortal form, they are certainly intended to be significantly tougher than when they were alive.

Zombies are slow, dumb, and easy to hit. But when they do hit back, they fuck you up.

They're good monsters for low-level parties because they can pose a significant threat without really being able to DO anything unless the party wants to fight them. And if you have a cleric, they're not hard to dispatch at all.

A level 3 fighter would do the same damage but have another +2 to hit, and would have two more hit dice so probably have more hitpoints than the zombie, so it seems like the commoner zombie is about on par with a 1st level fighter or a bit worse (rated EL 1/2), but of course are vulnerable to things other than fighting toe to toe with a mace.

They start showing up in groups of four as random encounters (1 in 6) on the first level of a DCC module designed for four to six PCs level 1 to 3. Of course it's a fun old-school module so it may be intended that it's meant as an "oh shit! not zombies! can anyone Turn Zombie? You can't do it again? Run away!" sort of thing, which would be fine with me, as I'm not one for forced balance, but...

What I'm wondering if I'm correct in my power level assessment, and if there is a reason why they would be imagined to be so powerful when they're just a peasant turned into a zombie with no skills or equipment trying to kill things by swinging their arms into them?

(Because, I'm trying to do a literal port to GURPS, where unarmed zombies will probably tend to be chopped up pretty easily by fighters with blades unless they get jumped or something).

Thanks guys. That helps me understand.

In addition to the whole aforementioned dark magic thing, there's also game balance considerations, in that if they were as weak as commoners, they would be no threat whatsoever, and not even worth playing out the engagement with them outside of absolute hordes of them, which D&D struggles to do horde combat well.  A few things:

1) If you feel they should be much weaker than they are, and are not a fan of the whole 'empowered by dark magic' schtick, you can always treat them as 'swarm' enemies.  Basically say that each 'zombie' is actually 4, and for every 1/4 of their HP eliminated, one of them falls.  You can do even better if you increase their bonuses by +1 (to hit and damage) to start, but have it drop by 1 for each 'zombie' slain (1/4 HP eliminated).  This also makes it more engaging for the players as they get more kills, and there's greater responsiveness to their attacks

2)  Keep in mind that any kind of ranged characters absolutely wreck them, as they lack meaningful abilities to keep enemies engaged, or to close any significant distance against a mobile foe.  They can also have traps set, and a variety of tactics used against them, which should fail vs higher intelligence enemies.  Part of their weaknesses is the intelligence or lack thereof, don't forget to take that into consideration when playing out scenarios against them, and when considering their balance.  If all the characters want to do is stand there toe to toe and bash at them, that's on them.

3) From a roleplaying perspective, think of it this way:  If a necromancer raises an army of two dozen zombies and unleashes them against a town, but they're as weak as commoners and the guards have killed them all before they even make the gates, how are zombies supposed to be a threat?  They're limited in supply by corpses around, they take investment to create, they have limits on how many can be effectively controlled, who in their right mind would go through all that if the result really was the same trash commoner it was before it was killed?  This plays into whether or not necromancy is even a thing, much less a thing to be feared.  You have options, but yes, you're right on the power scale, and imho a Huge part of the reason for that is 'because they must be that powerful for them to be worth it at all in the first place'

It's worth pointing out that in 3.x, undead have a HD that is equivalent to a Fighter.  Commoners are supposed to be weak (like Wizards).  A wizard zombie, a commoner zombie, and a fighter zombie are basically all the same - the 'zombie' part overwrites what they were BEFORE.  For most characters, that means becoming significantly tougher and getting a MUCH better unarmed attack than a monk might.  

That said, if you don't want to make the unarmed strikes deal such good damage, you can assume that all zombies grab something to use as a weapon.  With a high strength combined with an improvised weapon penalty, they'll hit HARD but not OFTEN.  Unarmed zombies wouldn't be much of a threat as far as damage (1d3+STR or whatever), but they could focus on grapple attacks which, with relatively high strength, may still make them feel more horrid than just hitting hard.

Again, thanks for all the great information and perspectives!

You've explain what I wanted to know, which was whether I was right about how I was reading the stats, what the attack was imagined to be, and why it was so damaging compared to actual weapons used by fighters.

GURPS zombies are actually about the same - they can be charged up with much more Strength than they had, and since they are animated by magic, they don't respond as much to most injuries as living people do. But the combat systems and ratings of things in D&D and GURPS are so different that the resulting power level is pretty different. An unskilled swing with a flesh & bone arm is not going to do a whole lot of damage in GURPS even with raised strength, and it likely to be parried, and a strong skilled fighter with a sword or axe can probably hack their arms and legs apart. But they could still be dangerous considering they don't care about their own well-being and so could do all-out attacks and try to tackle people and so on. It'll be fine.

Or do what most necromancers do in TFT and GURPS, which is give their zombies actual weapons, or at least clubs or something. That probably makes the most sense.

I would like to understand better how much / what effect Cannot Run has - that would tend to make a huge difference if you can avoid having to fight them as long as you have a way to run away.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109991It's worth pointing out that in 3.x, undead have a HD that is equivalent to a Fighter.  Commoners are supposed to be weak (like Wizards).  A wizard zombie, a commoner zombie, and a fighter zombie are basically all the same - the 'zombie' part overwrites what they were BEFORE.  For most characters, that means becoming significantly tougher and getting a MUCH better unarmed attack than a monk might.  

Actually, equivalent to a Barbarian (d12) IIRC, but they also don't get Con bonus to HP.

Quote from: Skarg;1110027Again, thanks for all the great information and perspectives!

You've explain what I wanted to know, which was whether I was right about how I was reading the stats, what the attack was imagined to be, and why it was so damaging compared to actual weapons used by fighters.

GURPS zombies are actually about the same - they can be charged up with much more Strength than they had, and since they are animated by magic, they don't respond as much to most injuries as living people do. But the combat systems and ratings of things in D&D and GURPS are so different that the resulting power level is pretty different. An unskilled swing with a flesh & bone arm is not going to do a whole lot of damage in GURPS even with raised strength, and it likely to be parried, and a strong skilled fighter with a sword or axe can probably hack their arms and legs apart. But they could still be dangerous considering they don't care about their own well-being and so could do all-out attacks and try to tackle people and so on. It'll be fine.

Or do what most necromancers do in TFT and GURPS, which is give their zombies actual weapons, or at least clubs or something. That probably makes the most sense.

I would like to understand better how much / what effect Cannot Run has - that would tend to make a huge difference if you can avoid having to fight them as long as you have a way to run away.

Couldn't you enhance the arms with dark magic or something in GURPS?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1110033Couldn't you enhance the arms with dark magic or something in GURPS?

Oh for sure. It's more of a question of setting assumptions than anything.

There's also the perks of being undead.  No CON score is basically blanket immunity to anything that affects CON.  Immunity to mind affecting magic, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, and critical hits.  Zombies also had 5pts of damage resistance unless you were using a slashing weapon.  All of that can be messy for a low level character to deal with.

It's similar to 1e. Zombies there had an AC equal to leather, did 1-8 points of damage (same as a long sword) and had 2 HD (so actually attacked better and had more hp than a 1st level fighter)

I could give them magic arms of powerful bonking, but I think for my purposes, it probably just makes sense to give them weapons. That seems to be the main point of disagreement that I was wondering about: how even a magically strong flesh arm, wielded with no particular skill, was going to be as damaging as a steel weapon wielded by a fighter. D&D seems to have a different sense about cause & effect for what makes things formidable in physical combat than GURPS does. But simply handing a weapon to a GURPS zombie will restore that difference, without needing more magic boosting than the already have, and without making it so that such a zombie would be even more powerful when given a weapon.

I was thinking maybe there was a flavor description about D&D zombies I could model in GURPS, but apparently it's just they're tough due to magic in a way that seems now best mimicked in GURPS my handing them something solid to hit with.

Another big difference though might be the inability to run.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1110031Actually, equivalent to a Barbarian (d12) IIRC, but they also don't get Con bonus to HP.

Commoner zombies are listed in this module and my other sources as having 2d12+3 hit points.