Dread Necromancers and Animate Dead

[frankthedm]

Boosting caster level when casting animate dead is actually dangerous if the DM wants it to be. Soon as one's caster level drops, even for a round, you now have uncontrolled undead since you have undead in exess of the new caster level's capacity. Sure a DN may be able to rebuke them, but then they are eating up the DN's rebuking capacity and his action in that surprise round.

 

[DogBackward]

Actually, Animate Dead is an Instantaneous spell, not Permanent. I dunno if there's been an official ruling, but everybody I've worked with rules that the CL at the time of casting is what sets the total HD that can be animated. And it makes sense. Animate Dead isn't a class ability, it's a spell. It should be based of the CL at the time of casting, like all other spells.

I don't have my books on me, though, so I don't remember the exact wordings...

 

[takasi]

Chimeras are large, and you can't use the squeezing rules unless the terrain forces it. We actually tested this, you can't squeeze two people that close together without a couple of walls to help out. So, you could maybe get four of them if you manage the spacing perfectly, but most likely only three, unless you're up against a larger enemy. All in all, not a big deal.

1000+ hp is still a big deal. If I really wanted an AC boost I can always cast mass fly.

Boosting caster level when casting animate dead is actually dangerous if the DM wants it to be. Soon as one's caster level drops, even for a round, you now have uncontrolled undead since you have undead in exess of the new caster level's capacity. Sure a DN may be able to rebuke them, but then they are eating up the DN's rebuking capacity and his action in that surprise round.

True. However, the 1000+ hp worth of undead is just from the base class feature with no variance in caster level.

 

[DogBackward]

Turn/Destroy Undead, Command Undead, Undeath to Death, Consecrate, Mass Cure X, and the list goes on. Really, 1000+ HP of undead is nothing. That many skeletons is bound to attract the attention of some well-meaning Cleric, and *poof*, they're gone. Or you could have a jealous Wizard use Command Undead, or even Undeath to Death. Not to mention, Undead are not all that great in combat. Sure, they might stop a few attacks and deal out some damage, but so would some Summon Monster X spells, without costing 450g a pop.

While it appears huge at first glance, it really isn't that big a deal.

 

[takasi]

Turn/Destroy Undead, Command Undead, Undeath to Death, Consecrate, Mass Cure X, and the list goes on. Really, 1000+ HP of undead is nothing. That many skeletons is bound to attract the attention of some well-meaning Cleric, and *poof*, they're gone. Or you could have a jealous Wizard use Command Undead, or even Undeath to Death. Not to mention, Undead are not all that great in combat. Sure, they might stop a few attacks and deal out some damage, but so would some Summon Monster X spells, without costing 450g a pop.

While it appears huge at first glance, it really isn't that big a deal.

Appears huge? It IS huge. What percentage of typical encounters, in a party (not as an enemy) are going to be against a cleric?

If a DM is forced to tailor the entire campaign around one spell (remember, he still has his full array of spells) then something is wrong, don't you think?

And that's with your houserule. I think by the RAW it's 20 HD skeletons, which no one is turning. Mass cures will do very little (they require a save and do very little damage) considering their level.

*poof* they are gone and then he gets another 2500 gold and poof they are back. Doesn't anyone see it as a little overpowering?

Also remember that the Dread Necromancer is going to have access to a lot of Summon Undead spells that will last a long time too. Those turns and rebukes will go for the summons first, which can be dismissed at any time. (Right?)

 

[DogBackward]

See, you're looking at it on paper, whereas I had a player actually try this. It didn't work. True I don't run random encounters, and I don't roll up random monsters, because I run a campaign, not an MMORPG, where a random monster spawns every time you walk 10ft down the road.

Something a lot of people need to learn: When playing DnD, yes, you do nedd to tailor the encounters to your adventuring party. You need to take into account what your players can do, and plan for it accordingly. I'm not saying to nerf every player ability, but you need to be designing your game around your players. You can't jsut use some generic adventure, toss your players into it, and expect it to go off without a hitch.

Being a DM is a huge job, and you need to work at it quite a bit. If you're a lazy DM, and don't take your players and their characters into account, then yes, your game will crash and burn. You need to take an active roll in the game that you're DM'ing. Keep the sheets of your players' characters, and give 'em a once-over before you designe an encounter/adventure. Put in plenty of opportunities to do two things: let an individual player shine, and let him realize that no matter what he does, he's not invincible.

So yeah, it's ok if your player uses his character's horde of 9 HD creatures to keep a deadly enemy at bay. For one, he gets to feel very good about his character choices, and be proud of his effect on the game. And down the road, he can say "Yeah, if it weren't for my skeletons giving up their unlives, we'd all be dead right now."

Contrary to (what seems to be) popular belief, your players having fun is a good thing. And you can never forget one thing: You are the DM. While your players might come up with thousands of ways to make powerful characters, you are in charge of the entire game. There is nothing they can do that will break your game, because you will always have a way to keep it from breaking your game.

So, let your necromancer raise 90 HD of Chimeras, using 4500g. Let him throw them at your waves of baddies. Then, take that pencil I assume you own, and modify the amount of baddies to account for the extra good guys. If you're worried about one character outshining others, then fix it. Put in scenarios specifically to allow the outshone characters to shine on their own.

I tend to ramble, so I'll just sum it all up here. If you ignore what your players can do, and run a generic/random scenario, then they will inevitably run roughshod over your game. And it's entirely your own fault. Deal with it, or fix it. But don't ruin your players' concepts just because you're unwilling to put in the time to be a good DM, and adjust the game to account for their abilities. You are the DM. There is nothing your players can do that you cannot account for.

And the final, most important part of DM'ing. It is not about the DM telling his story. It is about the DM helping to tell the Players' stories.

((Sorry, I may have ranted a bit there, but I've seen so many posts about this sort of thing, and it's just been building up. You're the DM, there is nothing that can break your game, unless you allow it to do so.))

 

[takasi]

Question for you then DogBackward:

Do you believe that D&D should try to balance characters? What do you see as an imbalance? Do you think that there are any abilities that are too powerful or inappropriate for GAME DESIGNERS to publish? Forget the DM for a sec. What about the people who write the rules? Shouldn't they have some guidelines and consistency in what they're selling?

Game design is important too. There are some situations, like the RPGA, where not only do you not want to tailor everything to the PCs but in many cases the players don't want this either. There is a shared experience from playing adventure modules and if they have to be garbled to the point where no one recognizes the encounters at cons or when chatting then you lose that shared experience. I'm fortunate to be in several campaigns at the moment, some very tailored and some less so, and it seems wrong somehow to force DMs to have to constantly throw clerics at a party simply because a class is designed poorly.

And honestly, if the majority of your enemies in a campaign are clerics you don't think your players might think that's lame? What if they don't want to play in a campaign that has clerics rebuking, turning or zapping the dread necromancer's horde at every turn? What then?

It has nothing to do with being lazy, it has to do with having the freedom to create a realistic, freeform setting. Campaign worlds (and campaigns) should not always center around a party (though they usually should try).

And you mention the houserule you made, which is nice, but it definately isn't in the RAW. Just want to point that out again.

Finally, balance is for the rest of the table too. If one player says "if it wasn't for me we'd all be dead" too many times then the rest of the table start to get annoyed.

 

[Maldor]

HD undead with something like 58 hp each i can name that tune in two fireballs kiss your hp goodbye along with your 4500gp wroth of components

looks bad on paper but is not really that big a deal

and yes you can boost them with feats and spells but thats a even larger investment in what amonds to walking walls

go with high level hinchmen when they die you don't have to pay them

or go the way i did palemaster go for the big HD skelitons you can use command undead to control the extra HD and i still can't keep my minions for more then a few games

 

[DogBackward]

Question for you then DogBackward:

Do you believe that D&D should try to balance characters? What do you see as an imbalance? Do you think that there are any abilities that are too powerful or inappropriate for GAME DESIGNERS to publish? Forget the DM for a sec. What about the people who write the rules? Shouldn't they have some guidelines and consistency in what they're selling?

Yes, I believe that the creators of the game should use balance when creating their stuff. And guess what? They do. There really isn't anything out there, that isn't 3rd party, that could honestly break the game, unless you, as the DM, let it. They do have guidelines and consistancy. They've got years and years of experience at this, dude, and frankly? I think they're doing a pretty damn good job at it.

Game design is important too. There are some situations, like the RPGA, where not only do you not want to tailor everything to the PCs but in many cases the players don't want this either. There is a shared experience from playing adventure modules and if they have to be garbled to the point where no one recognizes the encounters at cons or when chatting then you lose that shared experience. I'm fortunate to be in several campaigns at the moment, some very tailored and some less so, and it seems wrong somehow to force DMs to have to constantly throw clerics at a party simply because a class is designed poorly.

See, the thing is, DnD adventures are a universal thing. You don't have to have played the same module to share experiences. Everybody's had the "Holy crap, how the hell did we survive that?" experience, and so everyone can share in it. And really, I'd rather have each person share their own, unique experiences than have everybody relate how they went through the exact same thing.

And honestly, if the majority of your enemies in a campaign are clerics you don't think your players might think that's lame? What if they don't want to play in a campaign that has clerics rebuking, turning or zapping the dread necromancer's horde at every turn? What then?

I never said anything like this. In fact, I specifically said you should let the guy have some time to shine. But you don't have to let his minions destroy your adventure. For one, all these huge skels really do is stand there and get smashed by the bad-guys. So, your player has his fun, and is useful, and your NPC's get to take out his skeletons in the end anyway. You don't have to plunk clerics everywhere, not at all. But one cleric, set up as the loyal servant of the BBEG, can make sure that even if his skeletons survive the entire adventure, (which is doubtful) and he manages to squeeze them all into the final lair (also doubtful) that they still won't impact the bad guy much, as they'll either be cowering due to rebuking or fleeing due to turning.

It has nothing to do with being lazy, it has to do with having the freedom to create a realistic, freeform setting. Campaign worlds (and campaigns) should not always center around a party (though they usually should try).

Seriously? Every game should center on the players. That's what good storytelling is about. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy was great because, among other things, it followed the travels of a group of heroes across the land. These heroes got to do some really impressive struff along the way, which also makes for a great story. DnD is about telling the story of a small group of adventurous heroes.

If you really want to make a "freeform setting", go ahead. But like I already said, it's your own damn fault if your characters trample your game. It is impossible to find and house rule away every single thing that could possilby be unbalanced. The only way to make certain you run a good, balanced game is to... well, I guess you'd have to take into accoutn what your characters can do, and plan accordingly. Hey, that sounds familiar...

And you mention the houserule you made, which is nice, but it definately isn't in the RAW. Just want to point that out again.

That's fine, I was giving my input on what might help. Honestly? I wouldn't really use it, myself. For one, where are your players going to find a 20 HD dead thing? Not to mention, in a world where magic is commonplace, most mages would know that onyx is generally used to animate the dead. So, in the commonly neutral/lawful good societies, good luck finding that much onyx for sale in one place.

Finally, balance is for the rest of the table too. If one player says "if it wasn't for me we'd all be dead" too many times then the rest of the table start to get annoyed.

Then don't let that happen too many times. Jeez, did you read what I've been saying? You are the DM, you set the pace and the plot. If one person is doing too much, make sure that next session you give somebody else a chance to shine. Or hell, ad lib a chance for them to do it in this session.

Really, people, DM'ing is not for everyone. If you're not willing to put in the time and effort, then you've got no business running a game. I spent the first three years of my gaming "career" with a mediocre DM who rolled random encounters out of the MM. And at the time, I loved it. Then, later on, I met a Dm who actually knew what he was doing. He had a deep, involved plot with plenty of action, and made sure that everybody got to be important. And you know what? There is no way in hell I can go back to some guy randomly rolling monsters out of the MM.

If you're not good at organizing, don't DM. If you've got no imagination, don't DM. If you aren't willing, or simply can't, put the time in to make your game as good as you possilby can, then don't bother DM'ing. Being a DM is a big deal, and a big responsibility.You have to realize that it's not about you, or your story. It's about the players and theirs. If you want to tell your story, write a book. If you want to have a series of random fights and tactical battles that have nothing to do with your characters' histories, backgrounds, or current events, then play Warhammer.

And yes, I realize I'm a rather opinionated guy. But I've played under a truly great DM, and I know what it's like. And the usual "let's raid a dungeon" and "I rolled 73, so you're fighting a..." campaigns come nowhere close.

 

[takasi]

HD undead with something like 58 hp each i can name that tune in two fireballs kiss your hp goodbye along with your 4500gp wroth of components

It's 2500 gp worth of components, and they are 94 hp from the undead mastery and desecrate. No feats required, although I'm sure there's something out there that can beef them up. (Not to mention some very cheap resist energy scrolls.)

And again, this is from DogBackward's house rule. By RAW they should be 210 hp each.

go with high level hinchmen when they die you don't have to pay them

These are pretty high level. They have as many hit dice as the party members. And if you wanted to powergame this, the dread necromancer could still take leadership and get his cohort and henchmen too. Oh yeah, and he gets improved familiar for free as his class feature.

or go the way i did palemaster go for the big HD skelitons you can use command undead to control the extra HD and i still can't keep my minions for more then a few games

The Dread Necromancer is better at controlling undead. He gets the charisma modifier to his maximum number he can control. In fact, at 14th level he would have 32 charisma (from tomes and enhancement items) which is 182 HD vs what would normally be 28. With spell focus's for necromancy these are DC 30 will saves for the undead to make.

Rules question on the second level command undead spell: do the HD of the creatures under the effects of the spell count towards the limit for controlling undead (technically they are not 'controlled')? From reading the RAW it would appear they do not. So can a dread necromancer animate wave after wave of powerful zombies and just put them under the effect of command undead? He will have a very good chance of winning those charisma checks.