D&D 5E (2024) The Undead Army Necromancer is not Designable

[Minigiant]

It's designable, but it's going to require some swings.

WOTC is (understandably) avoidant of summons, which makes sense. Even a single extra-NPC is a full new set of health to track, attack rolls to figure out, damage to deal out, etc. It can significantly increase the time a round takes.

But...it seems to me, embracing 4E-style minions could fix the problem. Let the necromancer either summon a swarm (single entity, just like we see in 5E) or a number of 1-hp minions that use the necromancer's spell-attack, with set-damage (no dice roll needed).

This is a steep-departure from typical 5E, but with a new leadership team in charge, maybe now is the time to try some out-of-left-field adjustments?

The the Crux of the issue is the necromancer fans have to say exactly what they want to be able to do with their undeads in combat, exploration, and social situations and what they are willing to give up on.

Thinking you can get 3+ turns is unreasonable.

Getting more than 2 extra turns in a combat is literally a 9th level spell (Time Stop).

 

[Benjamin Olson]

So that's 1 person.

Anyone else think there should be 10 individual creatures?

Hell yes! If I'm going to play a necromancer it's because I want to be a dread lord leading a horde.

The one time I played at a 5e table with a necromancer it really was never a problem. The undead were only really useful in combat in a few big planned out battles with lots of enemy targets to keep at bay; they were mostly irrelevant in the skirmishes that make up most D&D. Most of them were left outside when we went into confined spaces because they just got in the way and all were generally left on the outskirts when we entered a civilized place. They mainly carried our stuff and shambled into possibly trapped rooms for us and such, and were sometimes handy in slowing down an enemy if we were trying to retreat. Combat never felt particularly slowed, as they were simple combatants who basically sucked and usually missed. Necromancer rolled a handful of dice, then damage for the 1 or 2 skeleton archers that actually hit their target, and that was it. There's lots of fun creative problem solving opportunities with undead minions, and some sort of abstracted swarm, or temporary conjured spirit, or whatever overdesigned "solution" someone comes up with will not scratch the same itch.

The best innovation here would be a boxed text in the margins of whatever book reintroduces necromancers telling people to have reasonable expectations and be careful not to let their necromancer fantasy get in the way of the rest of their table's adventurer fantasy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hell yes! If I'm going to play a necromancer it's because I want to be a dread lord leading a horde.

The one time I played at a 5e table with a necromancer it really was never a problem. The undead were only really useful in combat in a few big planned out battles with lots of enemy targets to keep at bay; they were mostly irrelevant in the skirmishes that make up most D&D. Most of them were left outside when we went into confined spaces because they just got in the way and all were generally left on the outskirts when we entered a civilized place. They mainly carried our stuff and shambled into possibly trapped rooms for us and such, and were sometimes handy in slowing down an enemy if we were trying to retreat. Combat never felt particularly slowed, as they were simple combatants who basically sucked and usually missed. Necromancer rolled a handful of dice, then damage for the 1 or 2 skeleton archers that actually hit their target, and that was it. There's lots of fun creative problem solving opportunities with undead minions, and some sort of abstracted swarm, or temporary conjured spirit, or whatever overdesigned "solution" someone comes up with will not scratch the same itch.

The best innovation here would be a boxed text in the margins of whatever book reintroduces necromancers telling people to have reasonable expectations and be careful not to let their necromancer fantasy get in the way of the rest of their table's adventurer fantasy.

Exactly! Advice, not a rules straightjacket dictating playstyle.

 

[MGibster]

Well, not at least any single edition for all cases. I still think D&D is more than just the current edition.

And that's fine, but it still can't be all things for all people. No game can. Not even GURPS. Can you make rules allowing for a Necromancer PC with an army of undead? Of course. Would it be fun to play?

::shakes Magic 8 Ball::

Ask again later.

Stupid Magic 8 Ball. Anyone designing a new class for D&D really needs to fit it within the scope of its design. A Necromancer can work just fine, but probably not one with an army of undead at their beck and call. Just as every character concept won't fit every campaign, so to not every idea fits every game system.

 

[Minigiant]

Hell yes! If I'm going to play a necromancer it's because I want to be a dread lord leading a horde.

The one time I played at a 5e table with a necromancer it really was never a problem. The undead were only really useful in combat in a few big planned out battles with lots of enemy targets to keep at bay; they were mostly irrelevant in the skirmishes that make up most D&D. Most of them were left outside when we went into confined spaces because they just got in the way and all were generally left on the outskirts when we entered a civilized place. They mainly carried our stuff and shambled into possibly trapped rooms for us and such, and were sometimes handy in slowing down an enemy if we were trying to retreat. Combat never felt particularly slowed, as they were simple combatants who basically sucked and usually missed. Necromancer rolled a handful of dice, then damage for the 1 or 2 skeleton archers that actually hit their target, and that was it. There's lots of fun creative problem solving opportunities with undead minions, and some sort of abstracted swarm, or temporary conjured spirit, or whatever overdesigned "solution" someone comes up with will not scratch the same itch.

The best innovation here would be a boxed text in the margins of whatever book reintroduces necromancers telling people to have reasonable expectations and be careful not to let their necromancer fantasy get in the way of the rest of their table's adventurer fantasy.

That sounds like a bunch of different spells.

And that's ultimately what I think goes back the the crux of the issue.
Each "thing" you want to do with your undead minions should be a different spell.

Your swarm of attacking zombies is a different spell from your skeleton archers, your undead warhorse, your redead packmonkeys, ghoul butler, your wight knight bodyguard, and your will o wisp torch.

There's nothing wrong with having a bunch of crappy skeleton archers who shoot at whatever you point at.

The problem is if you want the skeleton archer to be able to drop their bow and grapple the charging orc warlord to keep them off you. Because you have 10 of them and now you have to make 10 decisions to shoot or grapple every turn,

And frankly that's not how it tends to even work in most media. Most mass-created new undead are idiotic or feral. Creating undead that can do more than attack, move, and stop typically took time and resources unless really powerful. At best a necromancer could put a ton of effort into controlling one undead minion. And that's why many stories had necromancers having apprentices and lesser mages (who you kill or distract first) under them to control parts of the horde or manage the bigger undeads.

But I think D&D and most games get lazy and try to get away with only having 1-3 undead summoning spells with only the power level being the differences.

 

[ECMO3]

this thread illustrates the difficulties with this discussion.

on one hand we have people arguing for less minions and the other people advocating a "fix" that is a spell that creates a horde with one casting.

 

[SkidAce]

Thinking about this, I think the problem is, not every class can become a minionmancer (or maybe they could, see below). The sheer action economy of having multiple bodies would quickly make some classes irrelevant in many situations.

And it's not like this is a Necromancer only problem. Other kinds of magicians should be able to get in on this as well. Enchanters could have mindslaves or charmed thralls aplenty. Conjurers could be able to have long-term summoned allies. Illusionists can have legions of Simulacra.

Then again, maybe Animal Handling should let you train a pack of guard dogs or wolves? Allow you to befriend animal allies ala Tarzan or Grizzly Adams or Dar the Beastmaster?

Maybe Fighters, I don't know, should have a subclass where you are a leader of men, with a capable lieutenant and men-at-arms following you around?

All of these things sound reasonable in a real world scenario, right? But that would change the game, much as it changed Gygax's AD&D game when his players hired a horde of NPC's to send ahead of them into dungeons. The combat rules as they stand would strain under the weight of so many actions.

The CR system would certainly be unable to handle things- how do you build an encounter with 4 PC's, 4 zombies, one NPC warrior loyal to the Fighter, 6 wolves, a summoned Efreet, and a pair of charmed Duergar? Especially when many of these characters are "free", acquired by abilities, as opposed to monsters, where every combatant takes part of the encounter budget to justify? And do you reduce the xp earned by the party for having minions, even though zombies don't earn xp (and were created via the Necromancer's spells)?

How long will battles take? How quickly will the DM have to start murdering NPC allies wholesale to get their game back in line?

I don't think the Undead Army Necromancer is not designable. But I think the game itself would have to be redesigned to allow for it.

Agreed. Which is why I suggested if you have more than two minions in combat, you turn them into a swarm or army unit.

Out of combat if you want 10 of them to dig and 10 of them to move the dirt....have at it.