Null Stats [Rebalancing 3.5]

[Elennsar]

It is a balance issue for anything based on undead HD. Turning, to name one mechanic.

Yes, turning has other issues. However, when it doesn't work as written without cranking turning level well over cleric level, something is wrong.

And what Siggy said, whether that's vital for balance or not... Undead being a d12 is a poor method of compensating for the fact you have to have all sorts of "+x to undead hp" to make them tough enough to be reasonably close to anything compatible.

[SiggyDevil]

Yes turning needs to fall in line as a damage spell or SoD vs. Undead type, not its own little "HD check" minigame. That part is irrelevant to altering Undead CON as an exclusive detail.

I'm more concerned about the HD because it's effectively nearly as bad as dead levels. You get nothing but d12 HP, which are just to make up for "-" CON, and tossed in like sympathy gifts are sucky BAB, crap SP, and a lone Will save.

It would be better all around for undead as a whole (before specifics as by phenotype come in) to have a small number of immunity tags such as "Does not breath" and "Immune to Death magic", some universal weaknesses with some case-by-case exceptions, and reverse healing magic polarity.

From there an undead advances with character levels, automatically gaining a handful of generic specific powers as by special type such as Zombie Sprint or Vampire Strength; these powers would be per-encounter or constant effect but not really as good as level-appropriate ones. More specific and useful powers must be acquired by feats or spells that need the caster to be undead.

Immortality is relative as decay will render some types to dust while others are simply spirits (and really shouldn't BE undead but that's another matter), so the lifespan of one must be extended by special needs diets. CON could be penalized per varied time period when this need is not met; reaching 0 CON means immobility or for some types to simply disintegrate.

[JaronK]

Yes turning needs to fall in line as a damage spell or SoD vs. Undead type, not its own little "HD check" minigame. That part is irrelevant to altering Undead CON as an exclusive detail.

Well, the far larger issue is Rebuke Undead for control.  That's all HD based, it's a critical part of Cleric Necromancers, and altering Undead HD will  have drastic effects on it.

I'm more concerned about the HD because it's effectively nearly as bad as dead levels. You get nothing but d12 HP, which are just to make up for "-" CON, and tossed in like sympathy gifts are sucky BAB, crap SP, and a lone Will save.

That sounds like you're talking about PCs as undead, which is a whole other ballgame, but generally speaking any PC that's going to be undead is going to be created in a desecrated alter area for the +2 HP/HD, which is really potent... an undead with that is equivalent to a Cleric with 18 Con, for example, or a Wizard with 22 Con, except you don't have to actually spend anything significant to get those hitpoints... dumping con means you can boost other stats.  Furthermore, PC undead won't have sucky BAB or the will save, as they'll have class levels instead.

Furthermore, remember that many undead are template undead, which means they again ignore the saves, BAB, and so on... but they do get the D12 HD, combined with massive immunities.  A smart undead that disguises itself as something other than undead is a truly nasty threat indeed, as you won't know what to hit it with, and then those immunities become very useful.

It would be better all around for undead as a whole (before specifics as by phenotype come in) to have a small number of immunity tags such as "Does not breath" and "Immune to Death magic", some universal weaknesses with some case-by-case exceptions, and reverse healing magic polarity.

Are you willing to go through the work of changing absolutely every undead creature in existance to maintain their CR and turn resistance while making these changes?

@Siggy:  How does gaining more hitpoints when you become undead hurt balance?  And yes, by the way, you usually do gain hitpoints in the process.  When I turned my groupmates into Necropolitans with my Dread Necromancer, they all suddenly had D12+6 HP/HD, which was an improvement even on the Paladin of Tyranny.  Further, would giving them even more hitpoints have improved balance somehow?  Likewise, having high HD/CR is not a problem unless you can explain how it is.

But to answer your question, I've said it many times.  It would hurt in the following areas:

Undead would have far more buffable hitpoints, making them far stronger for a given amount of HD.  This is of special benefit to necromancers who make great use their undead tanks. 

Undead Barbarians would get a lot stronger.  Currently they benefit from an inability to get fatigued but can only rage for three rounds due to having no con score.  Being able to have a con score, and thus being able to raise their con score, would make them far stronger.  Going Necropolitan would be the default go to choice for Barbarians.

Undead that are currently very strong for their HD (Vampyres, Necropolitans, Liches, Bone Creatures, etc) would become even stronger.  This makes them incredibly good for necromancers, whose control over undead is based on HD, not CR.

So... what would it fix?

JaronK

JaronK

[Elennsar]

One thing that ought to be noted. Most templates (undead is the only one that I can think of, but that doesn't mean it is the only one) don't alter hit dice type.

If undead keep their Con scores, they don't need their hit dice type changed.

So an undead human fighter would have his normal Constitution...and normal hit dice.

He'd gain all sorts of other things, but hit points would be the same as human, except for any "plus X hit points for undead" feats/spells/abilities/whatever.

As written, a lich is the equivalant of a wizard or sorcerer with 18 Constitution or a cleric with 14.

Simply by gaining the undead d12 to hit points...ignoring all other undead boosts.

This cannot be a good thing, given how many wizards run about with 18 Constitution.

[SiggyDevil]

@Siggy:  How does gaining more hitpoints when you become undead hurt balance?  And yes, by the way, you usually do gain hitpoints in the process.  When I turned my groupmates into Necropolitans with my Dread Necromancer, they all suddenly had D12+6 HP/HD, which was an improvement even on the Paladin of Tyranny.  Further, would giving them even more hitpoints have improved balance somehow?  Likewise, having high HD/CR is not a problem unless you can explain how it is.

But to answer your question, I've said it many times.  It would hurt in the following areas:

Undead would have far more buffable hitpoints, making them far stronger for a given amount of HD.  This is of special benefit to necromancers who make great use their undead tanks. 

Undead Barbarians would get a lot stronger.  Currently they benefit from an inability to get fatigued but can only rage for three rounds due to having no con score.  Being able to have a con score, and thus being able to raise their con score, would make them far stronger.  Going Necropolitan would be the default go to choice for Barbarians.

Undead that are currently very strong for their HD (Vampyres, Necropolitans, Liches, Bone Creatures, etc) would become even stronger.  This makes them incredibly good for necromancers, whose control over undead is based on HD, not CR.

So... what would it fix?

Do you see it?
It seems like they gain more HP but it really depends on specifics.
Those undead depend on their racial HD for HP. That's BAD.
You can't have a Deathknight or Lich without absolute sucktastic HP because they can't afford to grab Undead as minion zombies and skeletons do. I mean for the best intentions of ALL undead, not just mindless minions.
Think bigger picture.

For "buffable tanks" we already have undead creation feats for necros. If that ever was a problem, we wouldn't have such feats.
Or what, caster puts Mass Bear's Endurance on their army? Oh! Crap. Zombies with +2 HP per level.
Still a speedbump to other casters and builds.


I'll do the math:

Zombie L1
Undead HD: 1d12
Con -, depends on Unearthly Grace to keep up in later levels
Total HP: 12
Will 2
Skill Points INT+4 per level

Zombie L1
Fighter HD: d10
CON 14/+2 (this option assumes Elite Array or similar. Whatever.) Can potentially increase CON.
Total HP: 12
Fort 2 with +2 from CON
Also 1 Fighter feat, proficiencies, skills, BAB 1, etc
...OR...
Barbarian HD: d12
CON 14/+2 , boosts to 18/+4 1 per day. Can potentially increase CON.
Total HP: 12 to 14
Fort 2 with +2 or +3 from CON
Also Barbarian proficiencies, skills, BAB 1, +10 speed, etc


Which is easier to balance against other characters of the same level?
Which is easier to port in as a PC option?

[JaronK]

Neither is portable as a PC option, they have no Int scores!  And no, Zombies don't get 4+Int skillpoints.  They get no skillpoints.  You've never actually worked with undead, have you?

Meanwhile, Necropolitans work just fine as PCs.  I've used them myself without any issues.

Furthermore, I absolutely can have a Lich with decent HP.  It's easy.  Just play a Lich and use Desecrate for the self creation part... D12+2 HP/HD isn't bad, especially on casty types.  It's not incredible, but it's not bad either... and when combined with the self regeneration stuff and the immunities, it's quite potent already (though not worth the level adjust as a caster unless you're a Dread Necromancer).

JaronK

[SiggyDevil]

Neither is portable as a PC option, they have no Int scores!  And no, Zombies don't get 4+Int skillpoints.  They get no skillpoints.  You've never actually worked with undead, have you?

I have and do.

About the INT issue; same as with CON. Reduced, but not negated. Can be boosted.
Why would zombies have no skills other than the MM writer being a Romero fan? 
It could be a zombie-specific tag, but why not just put a big penalty to INT like -9 (turns average array to about 1 or 2 INT) and call it done...

Again, when applied to Undead universally it's better all around to just leave stats as values, not drop them down to "non-stats".

[JaronK]

Normal zombies are specifically creatures without intelligence.  If you want intelligent Zombies, Ju Ju Zombies fit the bill.  That's already handled for you. 

You're now changing a huge amount of things, including removing the very concept of "mindless undead" when that concept is something that exists in fantasy and thus should be representable.  If you want "intelligent undead" that already exists too.  Why remove options?

JaronK

[Elennsar]

Why make it so that "unintelligent undead" is the default option, and ju-ju requires something entirely different?

You want undead who have the brains of cucumbers, put "-9 to IQ, +X to Constitution" as an option for zombies/skeletons/whatever.

Ju Ju zombies are in what book, anyway? I'd rather not buy every book ever in order to simply represent intelligent undead and various other options.

[veekie]

Intelligence being a nonability is less of an issue though, it's less critical to a monster(presuming a combat role). Also, besides the focus on undead, constructs suffer from the same issue with hp, they simply cannot have more hp without having more HD or being larger(which doesn't help much either, a bigger construct doesn't get that much more hp). Same principle applies, the reputedly exceptionally tough creature types(undead and constructs) fail to deliver on their toughness without inflated HD.

I'd think the undead HD being disproportionate would also have an impact on their ability DCs though, animals and vermin with enormous HDs aren't as big an issue simply because they have a pure brute role in combat(hit hard and soak hits, deliver the odd poison/trample), but undead often pack special abilities that are dependent on HD for DCs, these occaisionally include SoDs too, so their ability scores come out weird.

[JaronK]

Why make it so that "unintelligent undead" is the default option, and ju-ju requires something entirely different?

It's the default for Zombies and Skeletons because they're easily created with a 3rd level divine spell (4th Arcane), and that's the kind of monster they wanted.  Intelligent undead is the default for more powerful spells (like Create Greater Undead, Awaken Undead).  It's not the default in general, it's just an option.

You want undead who have the brains of cucumbers, put "-9 to IQ, +X to Constitution" as an option for zombies/skeletons/whatever.

Yay, now I can have a horde of intelligent undead that you've just buffed as a 8th level Dread Necromancer, and if they were originally smart critters, they're now intelligent enough to do my bidding!  Yeah, this will turn out well.  Seriously, if my DM made this houserule, I'd be giddy with the power he just handed me.

Ju Ju zombies are in what book, anyway? I'd rather not buy every book ever in order to simply represent intelligent undead and various other options.

Unapproachable East... but seriously, you don't actually think intelligent undead are only found there right?  Vampires and Liches and tons of other undead in the Monster Manual are intelligent.  Heck, you can even make intelligent undead with Animate Dead if you make Necrosis Carnexes (they're not very smart, and they're less efficient fighters for their HD, but they're somewhat useful).

Remember: lack of intelligence isn't the default... it's just what you get with a 3rd/4th level spell.

@veekie:  A lot of undead have that same brute role in combat too.  And undead with special abilities tend to have low hitpoints, but it's not like that's a bad thing.  Undead come in two basic varieties: mindless (or nearly so) brutes with tons of hitpoints that are hard as heck to kill, and intelligent killers with few hitpoints but plenty of immunities to make up for it.  Animals have plenty of special abilities (poison is the big one) and they have the same HD values.  So do abberations.

Seriously folks, look at what Abberations, Animals, and Undead have as far as CR/HD ratios.  You'll find it's all pretty similar.  All three types average pretty high HDs for their CRs, with a few noticable exceptions (though Animals have far fewer exceptions to that rule).

Understand how the game works first before trying to fix it.  This whole thread has been a series of "I'm going to fix it until it's broke because I don't know how broken it is to start with" thinking, which is why I keep trying to focus on asking what's actually broken.  For example, Veekie says that high undead HD changes their ability DCs to make them higher.  Which undead creatures is that a problem for?   Can you point out an example of a broken undead that's broken because of having too many HD for its CR?

JaronK

JaronK

[SiggyDevil]

That's fine and all, but assuming others know less than the game because they/we hold different objectives and preferences is fallacious.

The proposals for undead in this thread in theme with OP concept can be summed as follows:
• Giving CON to increase HP. No need for Undead HD. Seriously, compare Undead HD with any class and you'll find the former lacking.
• Giving INT, no matter how low, to give skill points and class levels. Specific types can still be mindless as by trait; it's a roleplaying issue to say "They can't act on their own." You DON'T need to fuck with ability scores to say that.

[Midnight_v]

Why make it so that "unintelligent undead" is the default option, and ju-ju requires something entirely different?

You want undead who have the brains of cucumbers, put "-9 to IQ, +X to Constitution" as an option for zombies/skeletons/whatever.

Ju Ju zombies are in what book, anyway? I'd rather not buy every book ever in order to simply represent intelligent undead and various other options.

Why make it so that "intelligent undead" is the default option?
What kind of argument is that? He asks a question? You ask the opposite without ever addressing his question?
Weak.
Red Herring. Fallacy.

Okay so either you don't have a basic grasp of argument or you think we don't. You're consistently avoiding his questions. Then diverting to another seemingly related sounding thing... but it's a pretty obvious ploy really.

Frankly, if you start talking about Zombies. 90% of everyone starts by thinking of Romero Zombies it IS the default zombie for D&D. Already
 If you want a "Default" intelligent undead. Then you use Ghouls you don't even NEED ju-ju zombies or any other book, as the "Only" mindless undead we see typically are skeletons and zombies.

There's no reason for this "null stat" thing in "Rebalancing 3.5".

If its a problem someone explain: What is the problem?

How exactly, did (or does) having high hit-die undead ruin your gameplay?

  Ostensibly there's no difference between them having Con and not having con except them HAVING CON makes us re-write all the undead and turning, and all other hit-dice related effects.
Oh wait we also then have to redo, slimes, incorporeals, Golems and random magical beasts...

And for what?
To fix a problem that doesn't actually exist.
Wow. You should be in politics.
This whole thread is a false flag operation. Bravo.    

That's fine and all, but assuming others know less than the game because they/we hold different objectives and preferences is fallacious.

WUT? 
  Wait.

Thats not it. Thats not it at all you haven't been here from the start. Some of these people have literally said "I haven't had experience with X,Y,and X classes, or I haven't had X,Y, Z situation come up. . . Therefore they dont' exist.
So it not an assumption.
Assuming you know the whole of a situation without actually researching the whole of a situation is fallacious as well.

Though, really at any point someone may say " You dont' know what the fuck you're talking about"
and be absolutely right" or a at least relatively right.

For instance in this case.
El argues about "Default" undead being unintelligent. Starts asking about locating a Ju-ju zombie as an alternative.
Both JaronK and I give example of intelligent undead being in the MM.  Default being of course an entirely subjective term, but since his reference became not wanting to by every book then we draw the conclusion that his complaint revolves around a lack of Int score having undead in the MM.
 Which in the case of "the search for intelligent undead" lead us to 1 of 2 possibly 3 conclusions.
1. El Doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about on the topic or at least not entirely
2. El does know what he's talking about but is intentionally obfuscating the situation to propagate his opinion which is not base on "logic" som much as how he "feels"
3. for some reason he's not talking about the MM when saying default but refering to the "spell" animate dead.
Which to be totally clear, we have no reason to change the base animate dead spell to create intelligent undead, because The basic premise they suggest has yet to be proven.
So again.
I assert... There is no problem with having "null" stats.
Infact removing it actually causes more problems.
Please discuss.

[JaronK]

That's fine and all, but assuming others know less than the game because they/we hold different objectives and preferences is fallacious.

So many people have said they don't know, so I'm going with that.  Plus, you turn around and state falsehoods right after this.

The proposals for undead in this thread in theme with OP concept can be summed as follows:
• Giving CON to increase HP. No need for Undead HD. Seriously, compare Undead HD with any class and you'll find the former lacking.

Funny, I think Undead HD are far better than Wizard HD, even with Con changes.  In fact, that's a major perk for Wizards for becoming Necropolitan.  Furthermore, compared to a lot of animals undead come out ahead, and they come out ahead of a lot of Aberations too.  Now add in the fact that they get all those immunities and you can see that defensively they're generally better per HD than Aberrations and Animals.  So, your statement here is pretty far off.

Also, why does it matter that undead have more HD than some other types/classes?  Why is that bad?  They're balanced for that already.  Once more: can you (or anybody) name an undead critter that is unbalanced because of their special hp?

• Giving INT, no matter how low, to give skill points and class levels. Specific types can still be mindless as by trait; it's a roleplaying issue to say "They can't act on their own." You DON'T need to fuck with ability scores to say that.

Okay, so we're changing mindless from "mindless" to "have an int score, but it doesn't matter, because they have the mindless trait."  How does that help anything?

JaronK

[SiggyDevil]

Midnight_v your accusations are unwarranted and overblown. You would be valid if you didn't wallow in the wankery of your own 'argument'. Go to The Gaming Den or ENWorld for that. They'll love you there.


JaronK, I see racial HD as a big problem.
As stated elsewhere in this subforum, HD really should = CR = ECL. Everything becomes more simple after that.
Undead that make up for sucky basics by adding more HD are compensating. Having twice as many HD as CR is a strange thing due to spell interactions, wealth-by-level, base save advancement... the list goes on.
I haven't been comparing Undead HD to other racial HD, I've compared it to class levels; an undead with HD = CR but more HP than before (thanks to CON boosts) should be fairly equal to living characters.

Undead immunities are partially from null stat properties, partially by overarching undead qualities, and partially from specific undead subtype.
Without null stats one would shift those immunities and traits over as undead-granted and nothing would change there.

Mindlessness affects behavior and provides some immunities. Those are traits that can and do come from outside of having null stats.

I pretty much see null stats as a lazy method of adding traits for monsters. Rather than another subtype or property, the designers chose to remove an entire ability score to do so.
I see why they did it (to provide some form of logical explanation as to WHY the monster has X, Y, Z traits) but I don't agree that it's the only way to go about it.

[Midnight_v]

However... despite that I'll retort
JaronK, I see racial HD as a big problem.
As stated elsewhere in this subforum, HD really should = CR = ECL. Everything becomes more simple after that.
Undead that make up for sucky basics by adding more HD are compensating. Having twice as many HD as CR is a strange thing due to spell interactions, wealth-by-level, base save advancement... the list goes on.
I haven't been comparing Undead HD to other racial HD, I've compared it to class levels; an undead with HD = CR but more HP than before (thanks to CON boosts) should be fairly equal to living characters.

Undead immunities are partially from null stat properties, partially by overarching undead qualities, and partially from specific undead subtype.
Without null stats one would shift those immunities and traits over as undead-granted and nothing would change there.

Mindlessness affects behavior and provides some immunities. Those are traits that can and do come from outside of having null stats.

I pretty much see null stats as a lazy method of adding traits for monsters. Rather than another subtype or property, the designers chose to remove an entire ability score to do so.
I see why they did it (to provide some form of logical explanation as to WHY the monster has X, Y, Z traits) but I don't agree that it's the only way to go about it.
[/quote]

So wait. You're completely dismissing my argument despite its validity, because you find my mannerisms objectionable?  Okay well maybe you should go to Paizo or Gitp. In which case they'll wipe your ass for you when your done shitting on a perfectly good argument. OR you know you could just ... I...don't know... Grow the fuck up. You have a lot of gall showing up yesterday and telling me "Go somewhere else" ... s'okay though Gall is needed sometime. Scrub rage. Love it.

[SiggyDevil]

So wait. You're completely dismissing my argument despite its validity, because you find my mannerisms objectionable?  Okay well maybe you should go to Paizo or Gitp. In which case they'll wipe your ass for you when your done shitting on a perfectly good argument. OR you know you could just ... I...don't know... Grow the fuck up.

Pretty much. You're obnoxious to read.

[veekie]

Which undead creatures is that a problem for?   Can you point out an example of a broken undead that's broken because of having too many HD for its CR?

That'd take some data mining, which I currently can't spare the time for(plus it's tedious ), I'll look into it when I can though. I've got a suspicion the disparity becomes more notable with templated undead and epic undead(undead built from the ground up like ghouls and stuff are much less affected, since their stats already accomodate for the differences). Whats the durability of a Giant compared to an undead Giant? Dragons? Both of these are creatures famed for endurance(high con, big), and becoming undead should at the least, keep them as tough as they were in life, if not become even tougher, but losing the Con would essentially flush their endurance down the drain(more so for dragons, their HD is already awesome).
What happens when the most common patch(Unholy Toughness) is applied to these? The cha based spellcasting ones get much tougher, the melee types are now embarassingly more fragile than their spellcaster counterparts.

Lets not get into personal attacks guys, logic failures in the discussion or personal dislikes, it doesn't help to work out the mechanical issues we're facing here.

[Midnight_v]

Ahh... right... the sensitive troll.   :rolleyes
My kingdom for an ignore function. fine

Then I respond for our reasonable readers.

JaronK, I see racial HD as a big problem.

As stated elsewhere in this subforum, HD really should = CR = ECL. Everything becomes more simple after that.

Okay, first this Rebalancing was never intended to be a full system re-write just a patch. To balance everything to be equal to tier 3. There have been a lot of great suggestions that have been refuted because changing them (While potentially valid) over shoot that goal and turn the game into something new.
That is not rebalancing 3.5 thats re-writing 3.5 which maybe needed but not in the middle of our current project.

Undead that make up for sucky basics by adding more HD are compensating. Having twice as many HD as CR is a strange thing due to spell interactions, wealth-by-level, base save advancement... the list goes on.

This doesn't out weight what it takes to change not just undead but all cretures with null stats. Spell intereactions actually are good because all spells aren't meant to work on undead, then there are those that are specifically are and are written to take thier massive hp's into account. Please provide an example spell that has a strange interaction with undead. Wealth by level ... I don't see the relavance, really. Pleas elaborate. Base save advancement... undead are generally made to get by on thier immunities not thier saves. Though many of them are given feats or more special ablilites that render them irrelavant.

I haven't been comparing Undead HD to other racial HD, I've compared it to class levels; an undead with HD = CR but more HP than before (thanks to CON boosts) should be fairly equal to living characters.

Right again the assertion. Why change something that isn't clearly defined as being a problem?

Undead immunities are partially from null stat properties, partially by overarching undead qualities, and partially from specific undead subtype.
Without null stats one would shift those immunities and traits over as undead-granted and nothing would change there.
Mindlessness affects behavior and provides some immunities. Those are traits that can and do come from outside of having null stats.

Of course again. . . we are actually generating uneeded work. It would be different if there were actually specific examples of how this "breaks the game" or really makes thing unbalanced but its all very generally "I dont' like it" style argument.


[qutoe] I pretty much see null stats as a lazy method of adding traits for monsters. Rather than another subtype or property, the designers chose to remove an entire ability score to do so.
I see why they did it (to provide some form of logical explanation as to WHY the monster has X, Y, Z traits) but I don't agree that it's the only way to go about  [/quote]
Here at least this poster is correct, if a bit judgemental.
He points out that he feels it lazy design. Then defends the point of why they chose that design.
What correct about siggy's statment is that: There is more than one way to go about it.
Though why bother when the list of things that have to be changed just keeps getting longer.
 We really have too many subtypes and types in my opinon. Thats one facet of the game that could be consolidated, but I'm not advocating that because it starts us down the path of redoing everything?

There is more than one way to go about it.

Indeed but the way in which it has been gone about actually works with everything else.


 

Whats the durability of a Giant compared to an undead Giant? Dragons? Both of these are creatures famed for endurance(high con, big), and becoming undead should at the least, keep them as tough as they were in life, if not become even tougher, but losing the Con would essentially flush their endurance down the drain(more so for dragons, their HD is already awesome).

The thing is these things actually do get MUCH tougher.
I promise you the system works like that.
 Zombie giants are some of the durable critters ever. + potential damage reducton and elemental immunity.
There is a specific template for zombie dragons.
A good resource for referencing this is "The Revised Necromancers Handbook" by K
It actually has a TON of research that shows the durability of some undead. It goes into the awsomeness of zombie dragons too...

[JaronK]

Midnight_v your accusations are unwarranted and overblown. You would be valid if you didn't wallow in the wankery of your own 'argument'. Go to The Gaming Den or ENWorld for that. They'll love you there.

I dunno, I thought he was being pretty reasonable.

JaronK, I see racial HD as a big problem.
As stated elsewhere in this subforum, HD really should = CR = ECL. Everything becomes more simple after that.

WHOA.  Are you kidding me?  That would require a massive overhaul of virtually every monster in every book ever written.  Seriously, less than 10% of critters have an HD equal to CR.  Basically, it's only humanoids with class levels that do, and even that's way off, since classes aren't yet balanced.  You just created a TON of work trying to do this.  Seriously, what do you plan to do with all the animals... pump their Dex, Con, and Wis to extreme levels to rebalance their saves and hitpoints after you chop off half their HD (in many cases)?

Undead that make up for sucky basics by adding more HD are compensating.

Or, another way to put it, classic undead are really hard to kill... that's their big thing.  So undead creatures of a given CR have higher saves, more immunities, and are more resistant to HD based effects.   That's how fantasy undead tends to be... resistant as all heck.  Vampyres don't go down easy, and zombies certainly don't in most tellings.

Having twice as many HD as CR is a strange thing due to spell interactions, wealth-by-level, base save advancement... the list goes on.

Why?  Spell interactions and base saves simply means they're more resistant to being killed or nerfed by spells, as more HD makes you more resistant.  Since that's just an intended trait of undead in general, that's hardly a problem.  It's a good thing.  Wealth By Level... that makes no sense.  Most of the undead you'd actually play as a PC have no racial HD at all anyway (Necropolitans, Bone Creatures, Liches) so Wealth By Level never even comes up.  

Keep the list going on then, because so far you haven't got anything.

I haven't been comparing Undead HD to other racial HD, I've compared it to class levels; an undead with HD = CR but more HP than before (thanks to CON boosts) should be fairly equal to living characters.

Well there's your problem.  Monster HD != class levels.  It never has, and it never will.  Unless of course you want to be the one to completely rewrite every monster manual and every other monster anywhere.  Class level equals CR, whereas even the strongest creatures tend to have more HD than CR (Outsiders, Dragons).  So basically, you're saying there's a problem because two things that were never intended to be equal and were balanced to not be equal are in fact not equal... huh?  Why exactly should HD equal CR anyway?  What is ruined by that?  I've never had any sort of problems caused by HD not equalling CR.

So yeah, you're trying to solve a nonexistant problem here by rewriting far too much of the game, adding in a principle (CR=HD=ECL) that throws off huge amounts of the game.  No wonder I don't agree with you.

@Veekie:  Exactly, people don't have the time for the tedious amount of work to actually find out what's wrong before they start fixing.  Templated undead don't have undead HD, so they're not an issue.  Undead built from the ground up are balanced for it, so that's not an issue.  So yeah, no worries at all.

And to answer your question:  Undead Giants depends on what kind of undead and what kind of Giant.  As a rule, a Giant is a poor choice to make undead.  Now, because they have too many HD (the smallest have 12, in the Monster Manual) you can't make them into Zombies (which are supposed to be the really tough undead) until you get Plague of Undead, at which point a Zombie Hill Giant goes from 102 HP (alive) to 156 HP (Zombie), in addition to gaining a bunch of immunities, natural armour, and saves.  If he was made in a desecrated alter area, his HP shoots up all the way to 204.  A Skeletal giant would lose some HP (Skeletons are not as tough, but more agressive), but if made in a desecrated area has the same hitpoints as the original (102) in addition to the immunities, though his natural armour becomes less (he has no skin!).  His fort save drops but he becomes immune to most fort save stuff, and he gains an improved will save.  Obviously any of these created by a dedicated Necromancer will be far stronger than that, due to Corpsecrafter and similar abilities.  Corpse Creature Giants also get massively increased hitpoints.

Undead Dragons have special rules in the Dragonomicron, but they also become much tougher as zombies or corpse creatures (which again are supposed to be the really tough undead).  They lose a few hitpoints as skeletons, but make up for it with immunities, so overall they are indeed harder to kill.

And yet you say their endurance is flushed "down the drain" but that's simply not true.  Heck, they can keep going endlessly!

So yeah, please, do the research yourself next time, okay?  You don't need me to do it for you.  I already know what's going on... again, I play necromancers on a regular basis.  You've basically come in here and said "something's wrong, Jaron says nothing's wrong here but I'm sure something is, but I haven't actually found anything.  Jaron, do the work for me and find out, because I can't spare the time and it's tedious, but surely you can do it."  But I already have, and I already know that there's nothing wrong with undead as a whole, nor are they particularly unique in their CR to HD ratios.

JaronK