D&D 5E Proposal: Fighter/mage/thief: quick and dirty concurrent multiclassing/gestalt rules

[Fanaelialae]

There's an impact from using different baselines: you're measuring relative to a Cleric 11/Wizard 9, and I'm measuring relative to a Wizard 20 or Cleric 1/Wizard 19. Again, an aesthetic judgment as to which one seems more plausible/common/archetypical and worth supporting. I find Cleric 11/Wizard 9 very uncool and don't care at all if it becomes irrelevant as long as Wizard 20 is still viable; you apparently find it cool enough that you want to keep it in your game even if that makes Wizard 20 relatively stronger than any multiclass split. (And there is nothing you can do to make Cleric 11/Wizard 9 as good a Wizard 20.)

I still use the Wizard 20 as my baseline. However, I want to also make certain that I don't invalidate other possible builds (such as Cl 11 / Wiz 9). Obviously they won't be perfectly balanced against each other, but I do want to make sure that they're all valid choices. Essentially, I want them to all be in the same ballpark. Since some of my players would best be described as casual, it's important to me that I avoid introducing trap choices.

Bearing that difference in mind...

There's a pretty huge difference between 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1/0 + 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1/0 and 8/6/6/6/4/2/2/2/0. Lumping the spell slots from both classes together would let the Cl 15 / Wiz 15 spend his cleric slots on wizard spells like Maze and Feeblemind. Getting to cast Maze x2 probably still isn't as good as getting to cast Shapechange x1 (there's a pretty huge jump in power at 9th level spells), but it's a lot better than only getting to cast Maze x1 is and having to take the Cleric 8 spell from a completely different list (of which Holy Aura and Antimagic Field are probably the best options) with a different set of spells-prepared pressures on it.

Lumping the spells together is sort of like allowing spell slots to be shuffled between PCs, which is obviously more powerful for a party than having everyone cast only their own spells.

You could build a Sor/Wiz who does effectively have his slots lumped together. Just take the same spells from both classes. Obviously you won't want to do this for ALL of your spells, but it would be well worth it for the good ones (such as Shield and Polymorph). That's what I would do. An EK/Sor/Wiz would basically never have to worry about running out of Shield spells. Bard is also a good option for this sort of thing, since Magical Secrets allows them to cherry pick spells off of other spell lists.

Precisely. Not only is 94 + 94 less efficient than 188, but it's also 94 from a more limited spell list with no 9th level spells, and fewer synergies. (E.g. if you're an Evoker 15, 94 of those spell points do not benefit in any way from your Empowered Evocations, and the 94 points that DO benefit are the same spell points that are competing with your Walls of Force.) Trust me when I say my powergamer instincts don't jump for joy at the thought of having 94 + 94 spell points but no access to 9th level spells. They do kind of jump for joy at the thought of having an extra feat though, and being 90% of the way there towards having three extra feats, particularly if I were playing a SAD combination like Sorcerer/Warlock.

94 + 94 is less beneficial than 188, but only to an extent (as I discussed above, you can make it effectively 188 for any spells where you double up on your spell selection).

You mentioned in your previous post that you like the idea of sorcery and wizardry being fundamentally different, but if I were a player in your game I would wonder why a 5e-multiclass Sor/Wiz can apply metamagic to a spell prepared from a spellbook, while an AD&D-multiclass can't.

Sure. I think we all understand the effects of our various choices, and the reason we went down different roads. Both of us have nerfed the combination that our own respective powergamer instincts tell us is exciting and a bit too powerful; we've left alone the combinations that seem kind of meh.

I wouldn't put it that way, but fair enough.


EDIT:
I also don't think a lack of synergy prevents power gaming, insomuch as it makes certain combos less interesting/appealing. For example, I could make a Druid / Necro (there's an interesting backstory!) in your game. He'd be the ultimate master of minions. He could use all of his wiz slots (3rd level+) to create undead and use his druid slots (3rd level+) to Conjure Animals. If he goes Moon Druid (and why not) he's darn difficult to kill even if you can somehow reach him. A one PC army.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

EDIT:
I also don't think a lack of synergy prevents power gaming, insomuch as it makes certain combos less interesting/appealing. For example, I could make a Druid / Necro (there's an interesting backstory!) in your game. He'd be the ultimate master of minions. He could use all of his wiz slots (3rd level+) to create undead and use his druid slots (3rd level+) to Conjure Animals. If he goes Moon Druid (and why not) he's darn difficult to kill even if you can somehow reach him. A one PC army.

That sounds almost exactly like a single-classed Necromancer or Moon Druid. The difference is that when the single-classed Necromancer is building up long-term armies wholesale using Planar Binding VIII, Simulacrum, and Create Undead VIII + Mass Suggestion VIII + Geas, the Necromancer/Moon Druid will still be playing retail with Conjure Animals V, Animate Dead V and Planar Binding VI.

The single-classed Necromancer has a higher ceiling on his power if he works at it and plans ahead (like a wizard should), but the multiclassed Necromancer/Moon Druid has an easier time generating an army on the spur of the moment. Seems like a fair trade to me; neither one is "better". One is just more wizardy and plan-ahead-y, and the other is kind of a mix.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That sounds almost exactly like a single-classed Necromancer or Moon Druid. The difference is that when the single-classed Necromancer is building up long-term armies wholesale using Planar Binding VIII, Simulacrum, and Create Undead VIII + Mass Suggestion VIII + Geas, the Necromancer/Moon Druid will still be playing retail with Conjure Animals V, Animate Dead V and Planar Binding VI.

The single-classed Necromancer has a higher ceiling on his power if he works at it and plans ahead (like a wizard should), but the multiclassed Necromancer/Moon Druid has an easier time generating an army on the spur of the moment. Seems like a fair trade to me; neither one is "better". One is just more wizardy and plan-ahead-y, and the other is kind of a mix.

The single-classed Necro gets Simulacrum at 13th level (120,000 xp) and 8th level slots at 15th level (165,000 xp). The multiclassed Necro / Druid can start building his "retail" army at 5th level (13,000 xp). It seems to me that for a long stretch of a campaign (107,000 to 152,000 xp worth) the Necro / Druid is the superior choice.

If the single-classed Necro is in a campaign which goes to high enough levels and he survives long enough, then you are correct that he'll be competitive with and probably even outclass the Necro / Druid. I'm not all that convinced, however, that it's balanced for the Necro / Druid to be vastly superior to the single-classed Necro for roughly half of a 20 level campaign.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The single-classed Necro gets Simulacrum at 13th level (120,000 xp) and 8th level slots at 15th level (165,000 xp). The multiclassed Necro / Druid can start building his "retail" army at 5th level (13,000 xp). It seems to me that for a long stretch of a campaign (107,000 to 152,000 xp worth) the Necro / Druid is the superior choice.

Okay, it looks like you're really going to make me do a level-by-level breakdown...

There's no good way to show this, but here's a couple of screenshots from a comparison:




Excel spreadsheet here: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...nmancy.xlsx?cid=481fe781f5800d38&id=documents

As you can see, they're pretty comparable. I'm not sure how meaningful "total number of options" is as a metric, since the quality of options is also improving over time, but for whatever it's worth, if you average the total number of options over the number of rows in the table (a questionable type of average, but one which I'm using here as a rough proxy for "total time at the table"), the pure necromancer comes in at 3.67 options per time-period on average, whereas the multiclass guy comes in at 3.49 options per time-period on average.

In reality the main difference between them is that the pure guy typically has more (and higher-quality) gold-focused options like Planar Binding, and the multiclass guy has a different way to use his concentration (Conjure Animals) and a different way to use Planar Binding (hag covens). Neither of them is ever actually going to max out on the total number of minions available to them, so also in reality the pure guy is going to be spending his concentration on things like Wall of Force while the multiclass guy spams Conjure Animals.

If the single-classed Necro is in a campaign which goes to high enough levels and he survives long enough, then you are correct that he'll be competitive with and probably even outclass the Necro / Druid. I'm not all that convinced, however, that it's balanced for the Necro / Druid to be vastly superior to the single-classed Necro for roughly half of a 20 level campaign.

I'm not seeing what you're seeing in the data. There is no "half of a campaign" where the Necro/Druid is superior. The only point at which the Necro/Druid is clearly ahead is between 13,000 and 14,000 XP, when he has Conjure Animals but the pure Necro does not yet have Undead Thralls. Cry me a river, dude.

You could make any argument for the Necro/Druid being better between 28,000 and 34,000 XP because now he has Undead Thralls too, but the pure Necromancer now has 4th level spells and Animate Dead IV, which is 67% more efficient at creating undead than Animate Dead III for a Necromancer. (A 6th level Necromancer who blows all of his spell points to raise undead from scratch will have 10 skeletons and 2 spell points left; a 7th level Necromancer who blows all of his spell points to raise undead will have 24 skeletons and 2 spell points left. Then both Necromancers can take a short rest for Arcane Recovery.) In any case, I don't think it's clear that the pure Necro is behind in the 28K-34K band.

To my eye they both have a niche. You'll go Necro/Druid if you want one thing out of the game, and you'll go pure Necromancer if you want another. I could see myself playing either, even with my powergamer hat on. With my DM hat on, that means I'm happy with the balance between them.

 

[Barolo]

I still use the Wizard 20 as my baseline. However, I want to also make certain that I don't invalidate other possible builds (such as Cl 11 / Wiz 9). Obviously they won't be perfectly balanced against each other, but I do want to make sure that they're all valid choices. Essentially, I want them to all be in the same ballpark. Since some of my players would best be described as casual, it's important to me that I avoid introducing trap choices.

(...)

You could build a Sor/Wiz who does effectively have his slots lumped together. Just take the same spells from both classes. Obviously you won't want to do this for ALL of your spells, but it would be well worth it for the good ones (such as Shield and Polymorph). That's what I would do. An EK/Sor/Wiz would basically never have to worry about running out of Shield spells. Bard is also a good option for this sort of thing, since Magical Secrets allows them to cherry pick spells off of other spell lists.

(...)

Just pointing out, neither a high level pure sorcerer nor a pure wizard would really be worrying about running out of shield spells. Between sorcery points with flexible casting and sorcerous restoration, and wizard arcane recovery and spell mastery, there is really plenty.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Okay, it looks like you're really going to make me do a level-by-level breakdown...

There's no good way to show this, but here's a couple of screenshots from a comparison:

...snip...

Excel spreadsheet here: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...nmancy.xlsx?cid=481fe781f5800d38&id=documents

As you can see, they're pretty comparable. I'm not sure how meaningful "total number of options" is as a metric, since the quality of options is also improving over time, but for whatever it's worth, if you average the total number of options over the number of rows in the table (a questionable type of average, but one which I'm using here as a rough proxy for "total time at the table"), the pure necromancer comes in at 3.67 options per time-period on average, whereas the multiclass guy comes in at 3.49 options per time-period on average.

In reality the main difference between them is that the pure guy typically has more (and higher-quality) gold-focused options like Planar Binding, and the multiclass guy has a different way to use his concentration (Conjure Animals) and a different way to use Planar Binding (hag covens). Neither of them is ever actually going to max out on the total number of minions available to them, so also in reality the pure guy is going to be spending his concentration on things like Wall of Force while the multiclass guy spams Conjure Animals.



I'm not seeing what you're seeing in the data. There is no "half of a campaign" where the Necro/Druid is superior. The only point at which the Necro/Druid is clearly ahead is between 13,000 and 14,000 XP, when he has Conjure Animals but the pure Necro does not yet have Undead Thralls. Cry me a river, dude.

You could make any argument for the Necro/Druid being better between 28,000 and 34,000 XP because now he has Undead Thralls too, but the pure Necromancer now has 4th level spells and Animate Dead IV, which is 67% more efficient at creating undead than Animate Dead III for a Necromancer. (A 6th level Necromancer who blows all of his spell points to raise undead from scratch will have 10 skeletons and 2 spell points left; a 7th level Necromancer who blows all of his spell points to raise undead will have 24 skeletons and 2 spell points left. Then both Necromancers can take a short rest for Arcane Recovery.) In any case, I don't think it's clear that the pure Necro is behind in the 28K-34K band.

To my eye they both have a niche. You'll go Necro/Druid if you want one thing out of the game, and you'll go pure Necromancer if you want another. I could see myself playing either, even with my powergamer hat on. With my DM hat on, that means I'm happy with the balance between them.

Wow, for starters kudos for thoroughness!

Secondly though, we're having a discussion, I'm not "making you" do anything. In case it wasn't clear, you're free to do whatever you want, and if I have inadvertently placed a geas upon you using the mystical art of forum-fu, I release you.

That said, I still think that the Druid/Necro is clearly superior to the Necro for a significant period of the campaign. The sheet might have convinced me that the gap narrows at 11th, but that's still a 72,000 xp gap.

For starters, I would never use Planar Binding as a 5th level spell outside of very specialized applications. It's an hour of time and 1,000 gp to extend your conjuration for 24 hours, with a longer setup time and more resources if you're casting it on a creature that isn't already bound. It's simply not worth casting every day unless the campaign features regular showers of thousands of gold that fall from the heavens and unlimited prep time for the PCs that is never interrupted by hostile creatures. It becomes a viable option at 11th level, when you only have to cast it once every 10 days.

You are correct when you say that Necro's higher level slots are more efficient at creating undead. However, the point I think you're missing is that the Druid/Necro can burn all of his 3rd level and higher wizard spells on animating a horde and still be quite effective since he hasn't touched his druid spells. If Necro does the same, he'll get a slightly larger horde but not enough to be equivalent to even a single casting of Conjure Animals IMO, and he won't be able to cast anything aside from 1st and 2nd level spells (I'm assuming they both use Arcane Recovery to cast Animate Dead one more time). Sure, the Necro can go the route of not employing minions and just acting like a plain-jane wizard, but the point is that if he wants to be a master of minions (not unreasonable) then the Druid/Necro has him seriously out gunned, at least until he's 11th level and possibly as far as 15th level. I already said that at the very highest levels (17+) the Necro is very probably superior, but IMO that isn't enough.

As I've said before, you're free to do as you please (obviously). I'm merely discussing my own point of view.

Just pointing out, neither a high level pure sorcerer nor a pure wizard would really be worrying about running out of shield spells. Between sorcery points with flexible casting and sorcerous restoration, and wizard arcane recovery and spell mastery, there is really plenty.

In a given day, sure. But I've played a wizard who ran out of first level spell slots in a deadly encounter and had to use 2nd level spell slots (less than ideal) to cast Shield or go splat. For a normal mage, four per encounter is the limit without dipping into higher level slots that you'd ideally rather not waste on Shield. Granted, that's more than you need in most combats. But when you're taunting giants into chasing you because you melee is being annihilated while simultaneously maintaining polymorph on the one melee guy who would otherwise go down on the next hit, trust me, four isn't nearly enough. I think I was 8th or 9th level for that encounter, went in with all my spell slots, and ended with one (2nd level?) slot remaining. 8 or 12 slots though? I can't imagine ever needing that many Shields in a single encounter (and keep in mind that the Sor/Wiz can use both sorcerous restoration and arcane recovery, so he is even less likely to run out over the course of the day).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For starters, I would never use Planar Binding as a 5th level spell outside of very specialized applications. It's an hour of time and 1,000 gp to extend your conjuration for 24 hours, with a longer setup time and more resources if you're casting it on a creature that isn't already bound. It's simply not worth casting every day unless the campaign features regular showers of thousands of gold that fall from the heavens and unlimited prep time for the PCs that is never interrupted by hostile creatures. It becomes a viable option at 11th level, when you only have to cast it once every 10 days.

I would use it as a 5th level spell in any situation where I was worried about death more than my profit margin. E.g. I have to invade a Mind Flayer dungeon. Boy, it sure would be nice to have an Earth Elemental who could scout for me without taking up my concentration. By Planar Binding the elemental in advance, I can have an Earth Elemental and a stinking cloud to give the earth elemental advantage and also incapacitate any mind flayers. Or maybe I just want to have an Earth Elemental (via Planar Binding) and a Fire Elemental at the same time.

Spending a thousand gold pieces is better than getting killed.

(Also, Wall of Force is not to be sneezed at, despite having nothing to do with minionmancy.)

Still, I agree with your main point, that 11th level is where Planar Binding really pulls ahead. I don't think it matters in practice because either minionmancer has more minions than he can shake a stick at, all the time. In my experience Necromancers don't usually bother with more than a dozen skeletons at once unless they are on an active war footing--the same scenario where you'd use Planar Binding despite the cost.

I don't agree that the Necro/Druid is clearly superior before 85,000 XP (which is what I assume you meant by "11th level"). I think you probably aren't using your undead to their full potential. Let's take 50,000 XP as an arbitrary measurement point. At that point, the Necro/Druid has 38 + 7 spell points as a Necromancer 7 (maxes out at 40 skeletons) and 38 spell points as a Moon Druid 7, which will let him conjure 8 CR 1/4 animals. The pure Necromancer has 57 + 9 spell points, which means he maxes out at 70 skeletons, and his skeletons do an extra +1 damage and have 2 extra HP.

Which is tougher, 40 AC 16 skeletons (scale mail) with 20 HP apiece doing (longbows) d8 + 5 damage, plus 8 AC 14 giant poisonous snakes with 11 HP doing d4+4+3d6 damage; or 70 AC 16 skeletons with 22 HP apiece doing d8 + 6 damage? 888 HP doing 567 damage (mod hit percentage/saving throw rate), or 1540 HP doing 735 damage (mod hit percentage)?

I haven't even gotten into things like Stinking Cloud combos, nets, and caltrops.

If you play with spell slots instead of spell points, it comes out as 44 skeletons for the pure Necromancer (968 HP doing 462 damage) vs. 22 skeletons and 8 snakes (528 HP doing 395 damage). No change to the conclusion: pure necro is still better at minionmancy.

You are correct when you say that Necro's higher level slots are more efficient at creating undead. However, the point I think you're missing is that the Druid/Necro can burn all of his 3rd level and higher wizard spells on animating a horde and still be quite effective since he hasn't touched his druid spells. If Necro does the same, he'll get a slightly larger horde but not enough to be equivalent to even a single casting of Conjure Animals IMO

I assure you that I'm not missing anything. You're just underestimating the pure Necromancer, and perhaps overestimating Conjure Animals. The Necro/Druid doesn't begin to beat the pure necro at his own game. What he can do is whistle up a horde of animals on the fly (1 action), which makes him better at reacting to trouble he didn't anticipate.

, and he won't be able to cast anything aside from 1st and 2nd level spells (I'm assuming they both use Arcane Recovery to cast Animate Dead one more time). Sure, the Necro can go the route of not employing minions and just acting like a plain-jane wizard, but the point is that if he wants to be a master of minions (not unreasonable) then the Druid/Necro has him seriously out gunned, at least until he's 11th level and possibly as far as 15th level. I already said that at the very highest levels (17+) the Necro is very probably superior, but IMO that isn't enough.

I think I've shown why this isn't true. By 50,000 XP, the Necro/Druid will generally have fewer minions and more druid spells--he can have a skeleton army and cast Pass Without Trace to smuggle it into places at +10 to Stealth. (Also, wildshape.) The Necromancer will have a bigger, tougher army and more powerful wizard spells. I'm not saying 50,000 XP is the first point at which the Necromancer pulls ahead; it's just a random counterexample to your "not before 11th level" claim. If I had to guess I'd guesstimate that the pure necro is probably already ahead by 7th level, especially when you consider that he can up-armor and equip his skeletons and zombies in a way that cannot be done for conjured animals, but I haven't done the math to know for sure.

I'm not in the least worried about the pure Necromancer losing his niche to Necro/Druids.

As I've said before, you're free to do as you please (obviously). I'm merely discussing my own point of view.

Sure, I know that. If I didn't want to be having this conversation, I wouldn't be. My "really going to make me" remark was levity, not genuine bitterness.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I would use it as a 5th level spell in any situation where I was worried about death more than my profit margin. E.g. I have to invade a Mind Flayer dungeon. Boy, it sure would be nice to have an Earth Elemental who could scout for me without taking up my concentration. By Planar Binding the elemental in advance, I can have an Earth Elemental and a stinking cloud to give the earth elemental advantage and also paralyze any mind flayers. Or maybe I just want to have an Earth Elemental (via Planar Binding) and a Fire Elemental at the same time.

Spending a thousand gold pieces is better than getting killed.

Yeah, I consider that a specialized application. You know what you're going into and that you're probably going to need that elemental.

A generalized application would be typical overland travel, or an ancient dungeon where you're not sure what you'll face or how long you'll be delving.

You won't use it every day unless it rains gold, because even with 5e's generous treasure tables 1,000 gp and a 5th level spell slot for something you may or may not need is rather prohibitive. Therefore I don't consider it a significant factor. There's a pretty decent chance that at some point, even if you have Planar Binding in your spellbook, you'll wish you'd cast it but can't due to time constraints (such as a dragon trying to roast you right now).

(Also, Wall of Force is not to be sneezed at, despite having nothing to do with minionmancy.)

Agreed.

Still, I agree with your main point, that 11th level is where Planar Binding really pulls ahead. I don't think it matters in practice because either minionmancer has more minions than he can shake a stick, all the time. In my experience Necromancers don't usually bother with more than a dozen skeletons at once unless they are on an active war footing--the same scenario where you'd use Planar Binding despite the cost.

IMO, a significant part of the reason they don't normally bother with more minions is because they want a few high level spell slots for other uses.

I don't agree that the Necro/Druid is clearly superior before 85,000 XP (which is what I assume you meant by "11th level"). I think you probably aren't using your undead to their full potential. Let's take 50,000 XP as an arbitrary measurement point. At that point, the Necro/Druid has 38 + 7 spell points as a Necromancer 7 (maxes out at 40 skeletons) and 38 spell points as a Moon Druid 7, which will let him conjure 8 CR 1/4 animals. The pure Necromancer has 57 + 9 spell points, which means he maxes out at 70 skeletons, and his skeletons do an extra +1 damage and have 2 extra HP.

Yeah, 11th level == 85,000 xp.

Which is tougher, 40 AC 16 skeletons (scale mail) with 20 HP apiece doing (longbows) d8 + 5 damage, plus 8 AC 14 giant poisonous snakes with 11 HP doing d4+4+3d6 damage; or 70 AC 16 skeletons with 22 HP apiece doing d8 + 6 damage? 888 HP doing 567 damage (mod hit percentage/saving throw rate), or 1540 HP doing 735 damage (mod hit percentage)?

I haven't even gotten into things like Stinking Cloud combos, nets, and caltrops.

If you play with spell slots instead of spell points, it comes out as 44 skeletons for the pure Necromancer (968 HP doing 462 damage) vs. 22 skeletons and 8 snakes (528 HP doing 395 damage). No change to the conclusion: pure necro is still better at minionmancy.

Spell points is fine for a simplified numerical analysis of how much magic each has available, but it is an optional rule so I think we ought to stick to spell slots for actual use cases.

Your numbers seem off.

Using slots, NecroDruid can maintain 24 skeletons (3 x 3rd slots [12 skeletons], 1 x 4th slot [+6], and arcane recovery to use the 4th slot again [+6]).

Necro can maintain 46 skeletons (3 x 3rd slots[12 skeletons], 3 x 4th slots [+18], 1 x 5th slot [+8], and arcane recovery to use the 5th slot again [+8]).

This assumes that a 3rd level slot can maintain 4 skeletons and a higher level slot increases this by 2 per slot level. I am not including the bonus from Undead Thralls since that refers only to creating, not maintaining, your undead.

I'm going to assume a 50% hit rate (AC 15) and I'm not going to bother accounting for crits, although that would favor NecroDruid's wolves. I will, however, factor in the advantage from the wolves' pack tactics.

NecroDruid's 24 skellys have 20 HP each, and deal 1d8 + 5. That's a total of 480 HP, and (9.5 * .5 * 24 = ) 114 DPR.
His 8 wolves have 11 HP each, and deal 2d4 + 2 with advantage. That's a total of 88 HP, and (7 * .67 * 8 = ) 37.5 DPR.
NecroDruid's side has 568 HP and 151.5 DPR.

Necro's 46 skellys have 22 HP each, and deal 1d8 + 6. That's a total of 1,012 HP and (10.5 * .5 * 46 = ) 241.5 DPR.

Therefore, clearly Necro's side wins, right?

Well, not necessarily. Whereas Necro is limited to using 1st and 2nd level spells, NecroDruid still has two 3rd level slots and one 4th level slot left (after using a 3rd level slot to summon the wolves).

If the wolves die, he can just conjure up more. They're far more expendable than the skeletons (who require more slots to create than to maintain). Moreover, he can cast Conjure Woodland Beings to summon 8 pixies and pwn just about anything with 8 castings of confusion/dispel magic/entangle/fly/phantasmal force/polymorph/sleep. Pick your poison. While I can't exactly quantify 8 castings of polymorph in terms of HP and DPR (for starters it depends on whether you're using it as control or a buff), I think you'll agree that it is significant.

I assure you that I'm not missing anything. You're just underestimating the pure Necromancer, and perhaps overestimating Conjure Animals. The Necro/Druid doesn't begin to beat the pure necro at his own game. What he can do is whistle up a horde of animals on the fly (1 action), which makes him better at reacting to trouble he didn't anticipate.



I think I've shown why this isn't true. By 50,000 XP, the Necro/Druid will generally have fewer minions and more druid spells--he can have a skeleton army and cast Pass Without Trace to smuggle it into places at +10 to Stealth. The Necromancer will have a bigger, tougher army and more powerful wizard spells. I'm not saying 50,000 XP is the first point at which the Necromancer pulls ahead; it's just a random counterexample to your "not before 11th level" claim. If I had to guess I'd guesstimate that the pure necro is probably already ahead by 7th level, especially when you consider that he can up-armor and equip his skeletons and zombies in a way that cannot be done for conjured animals, but I haven't done the math to know for sure.

I'm not in the least worried about the pure Necromancer losing his niche to Necro/Druids.



Sure, I know that. If I didn't want to be having this conversation, I wouldn't be. My "really going to make me" remark was levity, not genuine bitterness.

I still think that the NecroDruid is the superior choice between 6th and 11th, but you've convinced me that the gap isn't quite as large as I'd estimated. At least under your fundamentally different types of magic rules. Pretty sure it would be fairly broken using my synergistic rules. Oh well.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Your numbers seem off.

Using slots, NecroDruid can maintain 24 skeletons (3 x 3rd slots [12 skeletons], 1 x 4th slot [+6], and arcane recovery to use the 4th slot again [+6]).

Necro can maintain 46 skeletons (3 x 3rd slots[12 skeletons], 3 x 4th slots [+18], 1 x 5th slot [+8], and arcane recovery to use the 5th slot again [+8]).

But you can never acquire those 24 skeletons/46 skeletons in the first place. It's a steady state that you can never reach. The most you can ever actually acquire is to use all but one of your spell slots to maintain existing skeletons, and one more slot to generate new skeletons. Thus, 22 and 44 skeletons.

This assumes that a 3rd level slot can maintain 4 skeletons and a higher level slot increases this by 2 per slot level. I am not including the bonus from Undead Thralls since that refers only to creating, not maintaining, your undead.

Yes, of course.

I'm going to assume a 50% hit rate (AC 15) and I'm not going to bother accounting for crits, although that would favor NecroDruid's wolves. I will, however, factor in the advantage from the wolves' pack tactics.

NecroDruid's 24 skellys have 20 HP each, and deal 1d8 + 5. That's a total of 480 HP, and (9.5 * .5 * 24 = ) 114 DPR.
His 8 wolves have 11 HP each, and deal 2d4 + 2 with advantage. That's a total of 88 HP, and (7 * .67 * 8 = ) 37.5 DPR.
NecroDruid's side has 568 HP and 151.5 DPR.

Necro's 46 skellys have 22 HP each, and deal 1d8 + 6. That's a total of 1,012 HP and (10.5 * .5 * 46 = ) 241.5 DPR.

Therefore, clearly Necro's side wins, right?

Well, not necessarily. Whereas Necro is limited to using 1st and 2nd level spells, NecroDruid still has two 3rd level slots and one 4th level slot left (after using a 3rd level slot to summon the wolves).

If the wolves die, he can just conjure up more. They're far more expendable than the skeletons (who require more slots to create than to maintain). Moreover, he can cast Conjure Woodland Beings to summon 8 pixies and pwn just about anything with 8 castings of confusion/dispel magic/entangle/fly/phantasmal force/polymorph/sleep. Pick your poison. While I can't exactly quantify 8 castings of polymorph in terms of HP and DPR (for starters it depends on whether you're using it as control or a buff), I think you'll agree that it is significant.

Eh. Pixies are clearly not actually CR 1/4 in my opinion. They're CR 1, same as Dryads. I consider the "eight Pixies" trick an exploit which wouldn't even happen in practice, not something I need to account for in my game design.

Besides, a 100-point advantage in DPR at range no less makes up for an awful lot of wolf HP, as would having AC 18 chain mail-armored 31 HP zombies Dodging in the front line (which reduces DPR of course). In practice the advantage will be far less because neither minionmancer will actually be maxing out their skeleton (or zombie) total on anything like a regular basis.

BTW, I don't think crits would favor the wolves at all. Wolves knock prone, which gives advantage to other wolves (who already have advantage) and melee zombies/skeletons, and imposes disadvantage on skeleton archers. Skeletons on the other hand throw nets, which gives advantage to everybody including other skeletons. If I crudely assume that six skeletons get detailed to throw nets, and that therefore everybody including wolves attacks with advantage (i.e. assuming that the wolves don't knock prone the targets that you want to shoot at), then accounting for advantage and crits turns the DPR totals against AC 15 into 315.92 for 38 skeletons at d8+6, or 166.92 for 16 skeletons and 8 wolves.

I still think that the NecroDruid is the superior choice between 6th and 11th, but you've convinced me that the gap isn't quite as large as I'd estimated. At least under your fundamentally different types of magic rules. Pretty sure it would be fairly broken using my synergistic rules. Oh well.

De gustibus. If you wanted to play the Necro/Druid at my table because you like the idea of tossing around huge swarms of wolves all the time, I'd let you. I wouldn't think you're stronger than a pure Necro, but if you do, and that makes it more fun for you to think you're more powerful, then more power to you. (I think you'd get bored over time, because that's what happens to Necromancers too. The PCs get retired and the player moves on.)

 

[Fanaelialae]

But you can never acquire those 24 skeletons/46 skeletons in the first place. It's a steady state that you can never reach. The most you can ever actually acquire is to use all but one of your spell slots to maintain existing skeletons, and one more slot to generate new skeletons. Thus, 22 and 44 skeletons.

Ah, of course! Shouldn't it be 23/45 skeletons then, due to the extra one you get from Undead Thralls?

...snip...

Eh. Pixies are clearly not actually CR 1/4 in my opinion. They're CR 1, same as Dryads. I consider the "eight Pixies" trick an exploit which wouldn't even happen in practice, not something I need to account for in my game design.

That's fair. I'd allow it IMC but I have a random summoning table for the various Conjure spells (player picks the CR, then I roll on the appropriate table). So they have 1 in 3 odds to get pixies, but it's up to chance.

It is RAW however, and would work as stated at some tables. I have a friend who lets the players pick their conjured creatures simply because he doesn't want to do it himself.

Besides, a 100-point advantage in DPR at range no less makes up for an awful lot of wolf HP, as would having AC 18 chain mail-armored 31 HP zombies Dodging in the front line (which reduces DPR of course). In practice the advantage will be far less because neither minionmancer will actually be maxing out their skeleton (or zombie) total on anything like a regular basis.

In fairness, the ability to upgrade your minions with gear is up to the DM. The DM would be within his rights to say that skeletons and zombies are only capable of using the gear listed in their MM entries, or only simple weapons and light armor, or whatever. He could even give them the same proficiencies they had in life, meaning that soldier skeletons would be far more useful than commoner skeletons.

BTW, I don't think crits would favor the wolves at all. Wolves knock prone, which gives advantage to other wolves (who already have advantage) and melee zombies/skeletons, and imposes disadvantage on skeleton archers. Skeletons on the other hand throw nets, which gives advantage to everybody including other skeletons. If I crudely assume that six skeletons get detailed to throw nets, and that therefore everybody including wolves attacks with advantage (i.e. assuming that the wolves don't knock prone the targets that you want to shoot at), then accounting for advantage and crits turns the DPR totals against AC 15 into 315.92 for 38 skeletons at d8+6, or 166.92 for 16 skeletons and 8 wolves.

I was referring to the advantage the wolves get from pack tactics. Obviously, if you have archers, you command the wolves not to trip (unless the wolves are occupying a creature that the archers won't be targeting).

Those net throwing skeletons might be non-proficient depending on the DM. Additionally, they have disadvantage with the net (short range is point blank), so your ability to hit will be questionable. Finally, it won't work against anything bigger than Large.

De gustibus. If you wanted to play the Necro/Druid at my table because you like the idea of tossing around huge swarms of wolves all the time, I'd let you. I wouldn't think you're stronger than a pure Necro, but if you do, and that makes it more fun for you to think you're more powerful, then more power to you. (I think you'd get bored over time, because that's what happens to Necromancers too. The PCs get retired and the player moves on.)

Eh, I wouldn't want to play a Necro/Druid or even a Necro at your table. I used to be a power gamer back in 3e, but I left that behind along with the edition. It turned into a meaningless arms race of mutually assured destruction (of the campaign). If you've ever seen me post that I would never want to play 3e again, that's why. Oddly enough I still enjoy thinking about ways to "break" systems. I simply have absolutely no desire to actually implement those ideas.

In a friend's campaigns from a while back, my character gained a second class due to exposure to a magical lake of quicksilver (all class features, only half the hp, no extra xp needed, and it was something like 5 levels behind my "main" class). Because it was natural magic based, I was allowed to choose between barbarian, ranger, and druid for my "second" class. Both barbarian and ranger would have been a massive boost in power, but I chose druid despite having only a 10 wisdom. I did so because I didn't want to overshadow the other PCs (who for various story reasons weren't allowed access to the lake). The levels in druid came in very handy, but primarily only for utility and therefore didn't overshadow anyone. I did prepare Conjure Animals for emergencies, but I only cast it twice in the campaign (when I was more or less certain that without it we would TPK).

EDIT
Point of fact, 24 wolves can shred a group of mind flayers in very little time. Admittedly, the party helped too.