D&D 5E On Undead Commands...

[Pinwheel]

Hi folks,

There's something a bit (to me at least) ambiguous in the rules for undead, and I was curious how most of the community felt. It seems to be something that is ultimately quite table and DM dependent.

So, Animated Dead has the following to say:

"On each of your turns you can use a bonus action to mentally command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 60 feet of you (if you control multiple creatures, you can command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same command to each one). You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general command, such as to guard a particular chamber or corridor. If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures. Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete."

To parse the implications of this ability, let's break things down.

1. Commands you give are mental. No V,S, or M is needed, you simply must be within 60 feet.
2. You can command any/all of your creatures, issuing the same command to each one.
3. Your command includes what action the creature will take, and where it will move during its next turn.
4. A general command may be given.
5. If no command is issued, it will only defend itself against hostile creatures.
6. It will follow an order until the order is fulfilled.

So I've been playing as a necromancer for a few levels now and have been really enjoying it overall -- kind of gives a bit of a wargame feel to combat. We've run, however, into a few differences of opinion as far as what is fair game for commanding the skeletons I use. My DM has been more than gracious in working around some of the finicky parts of using Animate Dead, so this isn't coming from a perspective of complaint, but rather, wanting to gauge how the community addresses these issues.

Our first issue: "...issuing the same command to each [of the creatures you're commanding this turn]." RaW, this seems to imply that your undead will respond to only the same command. Ex: If I had 5 skeletons, I choose to order two of them to "attack hobgoblin A". Skeletons, for instance, have both swords and shortbows on their profile. I could have specifically stated, "I choose two skeletons to attack hobgoblin A with their bows." That's simple enough. Let's say one of the two skeletons is engaged with Hobgoblin A, and one of them isn't. In this case, would it be fair to state "I choose two skeletons to attack hobgoblin A with their optimal method", meaning that the one in melee wouldn't get disadvantage from using its bow, and the other would attack with its bow just as normal? Is this a meta attitude to have? Does it needlessly complicate things compared to just allowing me to issue each skeleton a different order?

Our second issue: general commands. What is fairly included in the scope of a general command? Let's use the example of "Guard the paladin." What does that imply? That they physically will group around them, respond to hostile threats, or provide the help action? How about the example of "Following the paladin within 5 feet, not allowing anything to approach within five feet of them, responding to any threat by grappling them... etc etc etc" At what point are you going beyond the scope of a "general order."

Our third issue, in a more general sense, is the toolbox potential of undead. They become a very tempting alternative to a great many threats in the adventuring world. Is that platform trapped? Skeletons across first. We can't push the sandstone block away? Maybe four skeletons will help. Can't beat the opponent in direct combat? Skeletons grapple the opponent and throw themselves off a cliff.

From a player perspective, it's very fun and enriching. But it seems to alienate the DM and other players to at least some extent. And this is without even abusing the amount of skeletons I could create if I wanted.

Just curious how you guys have fared at your own tables and would love some input into these issues!

 

[MostlyDm]

I'm a very laid back DM, so I would have no problem interpreting simple orders generously. You order skeletons to attack hobgoblin A and I'll assume they use the best method available as long as that method is straightforward. So, bow at range? Yeah. Sword in melee? Cool. Go grab the alchemists fire from the table nearby and use that? Not so much, without more explicit instructions.

"Guard the paladin" would mean they follow the paladin and attack anyone who attacks him, to me, unless the player had a strong objection to that interpretation.

I would prefer the player not get overly lengthy and technical with their instructions. I find that to be problematic for several reasons, both from a plausibility standpoint and just because I feel it's the wrong mindset. It kind of encourages me to try to find a loophole in your instructions, which is not a game I really want to play.

For point 3... I have no problem with my players accumulating an overwhelming toolbox. I'm confident I can challenge them when needed, and I also don't mind if they face less challenges due to extensive preparations. In general, I'm not afraid of anticlimax or steamrolled encounters, if that's what the players are striving towards. I can't count how many "big bad" NPCs have died like chumps due to player preparation, or unexpectedly aggressive tactics, or sheer dumb luck. I highly recommend taking this approach to DMing, it saves a world of frustration.

If the other players are feeling overshadowed though, that should be addressed. No easy answer there, the DM should talk to them and figure out a solution.

I don't have much hands on experience with PC necromancers though so this is more general thoughts. I know Hemlock has lots of experience with them, hopefully he will have some useful advice.

 

[Jediking]

For the first issue: Simplifying yours commands will help, but I think you are fine. Rather than commanding them to use their "optimal" attack, simply commanding them to "attack/kill this Hobgoblin" should cause them to attack it with the simplest means. If one is next to it and has a sword, he would pull it out and attack. While the other is farther away with a bow, it would stop and shoot.. I doubt this is a complicated enough matter that even skeletons will get confused.

Second issue: I think you example follows the rules of the game a bit too much rather than give a situation. "Protect the Paladin", "Restrain anyone who comes near the Paladin", "Follow and guard the Paladin". Any of those could be followed in a bunch of ways, from the skeletons walling the Paladin or if anyone approaches him they dog-bone-pile whoever comes close. Talk to your DM about an appropriate example to compare too that you both agree is what the skeletons are capable of (like a well-trained dog or horse). Commands that go beyond that scope will be attempted to be followed, but my not go as planned. Such as in your example, a couple of the skeletons start to grapple random objects or party members or each other within 5 ft of the Paladin, but others follow the command as intended.

Your third issue is more of a table issue than rules. Some players hire henchmen to sacrifi--err, lead bravely, others send their familiars or beast companions. I prefer to send my Rogue and Barbarian (one to spring the trap, one to survive it). Using skeletons as an aid is a good use of them, but replacing your party members is not. Talk to your DM and players if they feel like you should scale back, you seem to be quite open to adjusting and having fun with it, so I doubt you'll run into issues with your table. Just get some feedback from them and let everyone speak openly.

 

[Dausuul]

I view a skeleton or zombie as a single-minded, savage killer. Its nature is to slaughter the living, and while it is far from being a clever tactician, it understands the basics: If you've got a sword and a bow, you use the sword on stuff that's close by, and the bow on stuff that's far away. (The fact that the standard MM skeleton has a sword and a bow implies that it's bright enough to know when to use each.) So you don't have to be super specific on which weapon to use.

The skeleton does not understand much beyond killing, however, and it takes a "when you've got a hammer" approach to interpreting commands. If you don't give it very explicit, simple orders, it processes them like this:

1. The boss says "Do X."
2. Who do I kill to accomplish X?
3. Go kill them.
4. Based on my very limited understanding, has X been accomplished?
5. If yes, then stop.
6. If no, or unsure, return to step 2.

So, if you tell it to guard the paladin, it'll follow the paladin around and kill anyone who approaches. If the paladin is on the ground bleeding out, and another PC runs up with a healing potion, the skeleton will kill that PC. It will then proceed to kill anybody who approaches the paladin's corpse.

You can get the skeleton to do things besides kill, but it doesn't do them well, and it's not a computer - you can't "program" it with a long, complex sequence of conditionals. You have to stand over it and tell it what to do at every stage. In the "guard the paladin" example, I'd say you could carve out a handful of exceptions, so the skeleton won't try to kill other PCs who approach the paladin; but that's about the limit. If you get more complex than that, the skeleton becomes confused, and its default behavior when confused is to kill things until the world is less confusing.

As far as setting off traps or doing brute manual labor, yes, you can make the skeleton do those things, as long as you're there to supervise.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For more fun, try outfitting your skeletons in scale/chain armor from off defeated enemies, and then give them shortswords to dual-wield. Dual wielding doesn't add your Dex bonus, but the +3 or more from Undead Thralls more than makes up for the +2 damage you lose from Dex, so dual-wielding nearly doubles their melee damage.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm pretty much seconding what Dausuul said. The MM makes the point that Skeletons aren't mindless: if they're told to open a door, they will try the handle before they try to batter it down. Also bear in mind that the spirit animating a skeleton is inherently hateful and evil and will seek to harm the living if possible. They are compelled to kill unless they have been commanded not to.
Unless you specifically want the unengaged skeleton to enter melee, a general order to attack a target will lead to it using its bow or sword, whichever is most appropriate, just like you don't have to instruct them how to swing a sword. If you don't want them to guard the Paladin by killing anyone who approaches, you'd probably have to get specific. Something along the lines of: "Follow the Paladin and restrain without harming anyone who attacks her. Do not attack anything that does not attack the Paladin."
Some limitations to bear in mind though: I do not think that you can tell them to obey another creature: they only follow the commands of their master. If a townsperson sets one off, the only way that the Paladin could stop the skeleton would be to destroy or restrain it.

Disposable minions can be extremely useful: (just read Nodwick if you ever grow short of suitably depraved ideas.) Bear in mind that skeletons have limitations though:
They are very light compared to a normal creature of the same size. They probably won't set off platform and pressure pad traps meant for people for example.
Combined with this lack of solidity, they aren't very strong and aren't proficient in Athletics. So they aren't going to be much good at brute-force or grappling other than providing aid actions to a more competent party member.

This doesn't even start on the potential social issues caused by wandering around followed by festering corpses animated by spirits inimical to all life. Most nations will probably have laws against that sort of thing, and most people will have definite issues with that as well.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One thing I would try to keep in mind about skeletons following orders:

Skeleton Intelligence is a 6, well above sentience requirement (3) and almost as high as the player who used INT as a dump stat.

Ogre's Intelligence is 5

Zombie Intelligence is 3

So, if you can logically think "An Ogre would understand this command as it is intended" then a SKeleton should be able to understand it. The mindless killing machine undead is the Zombie, it has the intelligence of a savage animal, skeletons can be more subtle (as subtle as a stupid giant).

Actually, Trolls are 7 and Ettins are 6 as well. So, that's the listed intelligence level for Skeletons per the rulebook.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You could try a rule of thumb of commands cannot exceed a number of words equal to twice the intelligence of the commanded.

So, skeles would follow commands of 12 or fewer words without problems. For longer commands, the DM should randomly determine a few words to be dropped and then have the commanded follow what remains to the best of their ability. Hijinks will likely ensue, to the hilarity of all.

 

[delericho]

I would rule that the skeletons interpret orders in a literal and simple-minded manner, with a tendency towards killing living things. So...

Ex: If I had 5 skeletons, I choose to order two of them to "attack hobgoblin A". Skeletons, for instance, have both swords and shortbows on their profile.

I would have the skeletons attack with whatever they have in their hands (moving if necessary), or with natural attacks if they don't have anything in their hands. So if a skeleton had previously been using a bow, it will continue to do so, but it won't switch to the bow unless told.

I could have specifically stated, "I choose two skeletons to attack hobgoblin A with their bows."

Yep, that would be fine.

In this case, would it be fair to state "I choose two skeletons to attack hobgoblin A with their optimal method"

I wouldn't allow this, because of the calculation required by "optimal method".

Our second issue: general commands. What is fairly included in the scope of a general command? Let's use the example of "Guard the paladin." What does that imply?

See "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?

Seriously, I'd have the skeletons physically group around the paladin, move as he or she moves, and respond to hostile threats. I wouldn't have them use the help action, however, unless specifically told to do so.

How about the example of "Following the paladin within 5 feet, not allowing anything to approach within five feet of them, responding to any threat by grappling them... etc etc etc" At what point are you going beyond the scope of a "general order."

As soon as you get into specifics like this, it ceases to be a general order.

Also, I'd consider this instuction too complex.

Our third issue, in a more general sense, is the toolbox potential of undead. They become a very tempting alternative to a great many threats in the adventuring world. Is that platform trapped? Skeletons across first. We can't push the sandstone block away? Maybe four skeletons will help. Can't beat the opponent in direct combat? Skeletons grapple the opponent and throw themselves off a cliff.

Per RAW, those are all fine. The only real concern is:

But it seems to alienate the DM and other players to at least some extent.

As soon as your actions start making the game less fun for the rest of the group, you need to consider carefully how far you're going. If it's something you pull out once a session, it's probably not something to worry about, but if your go-to answer to every problem becomes "I'll use skeletons" and that's starting to annoy others, that's a problem (even if it's sensible in-character).

So maybe think about toning it down a notch?