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

In my family's home rew RPG, characters are more like wargame units.

It in Necromancers work on both sides as Heroes can be attached to our command Troops, Elites, or Mounts.

So the zombies attacks are rolled and move with the Necromancers. So their turn is fast.

If the Necromancer detaches zombies off their Troop unit and must follow Troop rules. So you need to be high level or use lesser zombies.

Well we did allow my cousin's Warlock to detach a single inp into an Elite Troop once. it devolved to degenerate play fast

Heh, I'm doing a similar thing inspired by Dynasty Warriors where Units are treated as dormant terrain hazards which the DM can deploy on a battlefield immobile until they triggered by PC or Enemy passing through on their way to an actual objective.

PC Commanders get a feat to attach a Unit as a 'Body Guard Squad' who can move with the PC and who the PC can Command via a bonus action to use an attack or a formation/tactic.

So for Dynasty Warriors type play you might choose a Spearman Squad that gets to use a Spear Thrust attack, a Spear Wall formation (10 x 30 wall of spears) doing 3d10 damage.

Modifying that for Necromancers "Zombie pack" I'd give them a slam attack and a grasping swarm formation (knock down target).

Anyway by treating Units as Terrain hazards triggered by PC action (or bonus action) the focus remains on the PCs not on creatures to be worried about.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Then make it a not-house rule if your concern is commercial viability.

Or, you know, houserule your game. Your game at your table is the important thing. No one here works for WotC after all, as far as I know.
I don't think you are getting what I'm saying.

No serious game designer is going to publish a class with the generic overpowered or disruptive play in its base gameplay loop for money.

People can do whatever they want for their home games. That's the base of tabletop RPGs.

But no designer is going to intentionally design something that they know is disruptive or imbalance or against the style of the game.

WOTC didn't do it. Paizo didn't do it. ENP didn't do it. MHP didn't do. DP didn't do it.

You will only see such a necromancer Class come out of a free to play space where the designer is not really trying to make something that they expect a lot of people do actually buy for money.
 

I don't think you are getting what I'm saying.

No serious game designer is going to publish a class with the generic overpowered or disruptive play in its base gameplay loop for money.

People can do whatever they want for their home games. That's the base of tabletop RPGs.

But no designer is going to intentionally design something that they know is disruptive or imbalance or against the style of the game.

WOTC didn't do it. Paizo didn't do it. ENP didn't do it. MHP didn't do. DP didn't do it.

You will only see such a necromancer Class come out of a free to play space where the designer is not really trying to make something that they expect a lot of people do actually buy for money.
MHP's Necromancer pre-5.5 make-over (with the necromancy unchained sidebar active) meets my needs and was a commercial product.
 



Ok. And that means no one should produce it for commercial sale? Funny.
The entire premise of this discussion is that the true version of the undead necromancer that many people would like to see which would seamlessly match up with the narrative and simulation of a necromancer is too disruptive for any sane designer to create for profit.

Every designer at some point weakens or nerfs some aspect of that necromancer in order to sell it.
 

The entire premise of this discussion is that the true version of the undead necromancer that many people would like to see which would seamlessly match up with the narrative and simulation of a necromancer is too disruptive for any sane designer to create for profit.

Every designer at some point weakens or nerfs some aspect of that necromancer in order to sell it.
And yet this one was on sale, and praised by MHO's fans, pre-nerf. Huh.
 

And yet this one was on sale, and praised by MHO's fans, pre-nerf. Huh.
MHP's Necromancer doesn't create a large swarm during the sweet spot levels and counts undead from spells to its thrall cap.

It's nerfed compared to what "Undead Army Necromancer" fans want.

It's an "Undead Squad Necromancer".
 

MHP's Necromancer doesn't create a large swarm during the sweet spot levels and counts undead from spells to its thrall cap.

It's nerfed compared to what "Undead Army Necromancer" fans want.

It's an "Undead Squad Necromancer".
I see the horde as a high-level thing utilizing sub-necromancers.
 

The entire premise of this discussion is that the true version of the undead necromancer that many people would like to see which would seamlessly match up with the narrative and simulation of a necromancer is too disruptive for any sane designer to create for profit.

Every designer at some point weakens or nerfs some aspect of that necromancer in order to sell it.
I went back and re-read the OP and there isn't any mention of profit making in the post. It's a call to simplify and shorten the length of a necromancers combat turns.

A complex 25 skeleton wielding high level necromancer isn't undoable....it just might be incompatible with the direction that DnD is moving in.

This doesn't mean that it can't be done at all ...much less in a fair manner. Inam currently playing a Necromancer in Frosthaven and can have as many as 7 summoned undead in the board alongside my character, each getting full turns.

Because the summoned undead use an AI for their turns I am able to very quickly parse through each of their turns and take my own all without disrupting the flow of the game or taking inordinately long to do so. It can, indeed, be done.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top