The Dread Necromancer and Critical Mass

[Twilight Jack]

A player in a game that I'm in is playing a Dread Necromancer (Heroes of Horror) with the Mother Cyst feat (Libris Mortis). At 12th level, he maintains that he can completely take over a small city inside of a week, through judicious combination of cysts and created wights. The crux of his theory appears to depend upon necrotic eruption to spread his influence far and wide by sacrificing the early cyst-monkeys, as well as an interesting reading of the rules regarding how many undead he can control.

Essentially, he creates 33 wights (4 HD each, he can control 132 HD worth of undead at this level). He then sends them out to wreak havoc. Every creature they kill rises as a wight under control of the wight that spawned them. Essentially, he only needs to maintain direct control over his created "parent" wights, and the rest will be controlled for him by the chain of parentage.

How viable is this?

[PinkysBrain]

Both Dread Necromancer and Necrotic Cyst aren't really the issue here ... a normal cleric could do the same, the problem is with weight spawning ability and magical command chaining. Personally I'd houserule that Create Spawn takes 1d4 days and if the body is burned no spawn is created and make magically command creatures independent when their master is magically commanded.

[Heliomance]

By RAW, it works. You might want to houserule differently.

[ZeroNumerous]

How viable is this?

By RAW? 100% acceptable.

Your mileage should vary.

[Oslecamo]

It works perfectly fine. Untill they find out the exalted paladin adventurer who's spending vacation on the inn and burns all the undeads into a crisp with some uber turning.

Undeads are easy spammable, but they're also easily destroyed with the right tools.

[Twilight Jack]

Oh, believe me, I ain't afraid of no wights. I'm just asking because the upshot of it is that a necromancer (whether wizard, cleric, or dredneck) has the ability to control a theoretically limitless number of undead using this tactic. He's limited only by the number of victims available.

Of course, the downside of this tactic is that every wight destroyed releases every one of its spawn (and spawn's spawn and so on) into the uncontrolled column. So there is definitely potential for serious blowback if you remain in the area where the wights are doing their work.

One nice thing is that I'm not DMing this game. I'm playing the conjurer/loremaster who is duly horrified by his knowledge of what this necromancer's tactics have been in the past (the other characters just met him and don't have the necessary knowledge base to have heard of him before).

[Innis Cabal]

A smart necromancer wouldn't send his commanders into combat to get killed, only using the lowest minions to do his dirty work and leave before the wights not under his control turn on him. Or use the mass waves of wights fight the other wights.

[Twilight Jack]

A smart necromancer wouldn't send his commanders into combat to get killed, only using the lowest minions to do his dirty work and leave before the wights not under his control turn on him. Or use the mass waves of wights fight the other wights.

I didn't say it was a sure-thing backfire, just that there was blowback potential.

If nothing else, he can use his rebuking ability to keep any uncontrolled wights in line.

[mabriss lethe]

A largish wight army can be managed. You just have to layer your methods of control.

First level of control: The wight pyramid scheme. It's simple enough. Control the top tier wights and by default, you control the rest.

Second level of control: Lynchpins: If you map out the relations between the wights, you'll find that a few of them will fall into key positions. If they kick off, huge chunks of your army go free. your best bet here is to lay additional controls on the subordinates of these lynchpin wights.

Third Level: A disciplinary code. Take the DN class feature that nets you new necro spells to add Mark of Justice. Buy wands/eternal wands of the thing. Every time you get a new spawn in the fold, order them through the chain of command to allow themselves to be marked. Make the conditions of the mark be that he must follow a specific and predefined code of conduct. preferably a rather concise litany of broad rules.

Fourth level: Diplo-cheese. Talk to your troops like people. Use that great Cha stat to give your horde an actual incentive to follow you even if the command chain gets broken.

[zakk2to2]

if you have time to spare have only a few of them making more so you can keep a guard for yourself away from fighting and there would only be 2 generations originals and the originals direct thralls

[Aquillion]

Fourth level: Diplo-cheese. Talk to your troops like people. Use that great Cha stat to give your horde an actual incentive to follow you even if the command chain gets broken.
Not sure this would work without extreme Diplo-cheese. I mean, these wights have reason to hate you anyway, since you're using magical compulsion on them.

Now, sure, diplo-cheese can handle that, but only if you pump it up so high that you could turn anyone else into your mindless slaves, too... at which point the exploit isn't about wights but about diplo-cheese, which we already know is broken.

Also, anyone with enough ranks of Knowledge: Religion to figure out how wights work will know what's up as soon as your army begins to make waves, and will start targeting your leadership or your sub-leadership.

[wadledo]

yea, the entire set up is pretty basic.
This is why necromancers are almost always big bads.

[mabriss lethe]

Not sure this would work without extreme Diplo-cheese. I mean, these wights have reason to hate you anyway, since you're using magical compulsion on them.

I actually pulled it off with a mostly volunteer army. How do you get people to volunteer to become a wight? Go to the elderly and sick, the downtrodden. Tell them that there is an alternative to calling up peasant levies from the army. Thier children can go on living their normal lives, planting and harvesting, etc, "if You, sickly old grandpa, take their place. We have the technology to make you faster, stronger.... All you have to do is agree to a "supersoldier" transformation and sign a few legally (and magically) binding documents. We want our people to love and trust you. Believe you me. You want that as well."

The DM loved it.

[zakk2to2]

that...

thats amazing! if i was a DM i would allow that so much just to see how it turned out. think you could make a city state culture based around honouring the dead who elders who become the gardians of the place! it would not even require the place to be that evil.

[MickJay]

There's something slightly similar in the Elder Scrolls, the Dunmer are practicing necromancy (simply put) so their dead could basically guard their own tombs :smallwink:

[ChaosDefender24]

Even if a bunch of wights or whatever did get "released" from the chain of command, it says in Libris Mortis that enslaved spawn actually admire and look favorably upon their controllers... and when released, they would probably still remain loyal to that cause. Especially if said cause (namely, being in an undead army) greatly furthers the wight's sole focus in undeath, which is to kill the living.

[Ganurath]

Technically it's viable, but something to consider: Wights are intelligent undead. They may exploit the chain of command to turn on their master to obtain their own personal freedom.

Dread Necromancer: Hey, stop attacking me!
Third Generation Wight: You're not the boss of me!
Dread Necromancer: Call him off!
TGW's Grandparent Wight: I assure you, Master, I would if I could.

[zakk2to2]

the rules text say that they can't. while they are intelligent undead the are still undead which are magically animate and the magic that animates them here dictates that they follow the animater if it is of the same kind as them.

also on a side note if the necromancer has within his ability to become undead he could control his army with no need for spells to dictate his army.

[Ganurath]

the rules text say that they can't. while they are intelligent undead the are still undead which are magically animate and the magic that animates them here dictates that they follow the animater if it is of the same kind as them....Where does it say that?

[zakk2to2]

Combat
Wights attack by hammering with their fists.

Create Spawn (Su)
Any humanoid slain by a wight becomes a wight in 1d4 rounds. Spawn are under the command of the wight that created them and remain enslaved until its death. They do not possess any of the abilities they had in life.

Energy Drain (Su)
Living creatures hit by a wight’s slam attack gain one negative level. The DC is 14 for the Fortitude save to remove a negative level. The save DC is Charisma-based. For each such negative level bestowed, the wight gains 5 temporary hit points.

Skills
Wights have a +8 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.

[Inyssius Tor]

Spawn are under the command of the wight that created them and remain enslaved until its death.

Which does not mean that a wight's grandsire can command the wight.

If the necromancer has not commanded his immediate slaves to command their immediate slaves to command their immediate slaves to obey and to refrain from decapitating said necromancer, and so on for each new generation of wights, the scenario Ganurath described would work perfectly fine.

[zakk2to2]

no the grand sire cant but the grand sire can tell its sire to tell it to stop or you skip that all over by having each wight tell its spawn to follow your orders as it would its sire own and if all you where talking about is the sire dieing we have been beating that to death and not in the nice way that makes more wights

you all missed a part of the equastion. you have each wight tell its spawn to follow your orders no matter what sure it wont work when the sire dies but before that its mighty good to do.

[Inyssius Tor]

no the grand sire cant but the grand sire can tell its sire to tell it to stop or you skip that all over by having each wight tell its spawn to follow your orders as it would its sire own and if all you where talking about is the sire dieing we have been beating that to death and not in the nice way that makes more wights

you all missed a part of the equastion. you have each wight tell its spawn to follow your orders no matter what sure it wont work when the sire dies but before that its mighty good to do.

True. I did point out that the problem could be solved like that.

But that's not the only issue. By RAW, they do love their direct progenitors... but what inherent loyalty do they have to wights further up the line?

A single sub-lieutenant, convinced that his immediate sire would be much better off not yoked to the tyrant at the top of the bloodline, could cause all kinds of trouble. If he's been ordered not to assassinate his great-ancestors... well, why not assassinate someone else's great-ancestors? In the civil war that ensues after a fifth of the army suddenly breaks free, the sub-lieutenant's hated grandsire might not make it... and that should provide plenty of reason for a loving yet bloodthirsty fiend to try it.

How far does the ordering thing go? Do they want to obey the spirit of the orders, or are they forced to obey the letter?

[zakk2to2]

simply tell it to not kill any wights that are a part of your army along with a few other simple orders would easily keep things in line. also if you use the method described with them being the elderly that are turned in order to keep there living relatives safe you have leverage.

[Inyssius Tor]

Don't kill? How about maiming?

How about through inaction, allowing another wight to come to harm?

I'll grant you the elderly thing; if they're sufficiently motivated, that would solve it. Maybe. Wights have an inescapable craving for the life force of others, which will drive them into a constant state of unthinking frenzy--devoid of morals or reason--if their hunger is too long denied. They don't need food, but that hunger cannot be dealt with any other way. If the tyrant at the top isn't devoted to feeding his slaves, even the most committed grandpa's devotion will decline.

[Talic]

He may command his wights. They may command their followers. However, a chain of command like this leaves room for betrayal.

For example:
Wight 1 - under your direct control.

Wight 1 kills a person, who rises as Wight 2.
Now, you, as a canny necromancer told wight 1 to not allow any wight he controls to attack you.

Wight 2 kills someone, who rises as Wight 3.
Well, Wight 1 wasn't obligated to pass the "don't allow progeny to kill you" clause. Wight 3 can be commanded to attack you.

By Wight generation 4 and 5? You can have near complete independence, if the parent wights spread out, so the necromancer's command takes time to pass along.

[zakk2to2]

so your complaint is that you need to add the words "and pass this onto any wight you sire" to what you say?

[Ganurath]

Most importantly: Has the player in the OP thought this through?

[zakk2to2]

really with this kind of thing wording is important. its only marginaly less import then in a wish spell

[Talic]

so your complaint is that you need to add the words "and pass this onto any wight you sire" to what you say?

But wights can exploit that too. All they must do is leave the area before a slain foe rises again. Perhaps they don't view it as "siring", or parenting. Perhaps it's spawning.

See, the problem with abusing command chains like this to gain power far beyond what's intended is that you're dealing with a malicious, evil intelligence. One that probably chafes at the reins of a non-wight controller, especially if that controller was alive.

So you run into the problem of the Wish spell. Except with this? It's an active force in the world perverting your intent, taking control where they can.

My players don't receive warnings when they try this sort of thing. After all, if you were planning a mutiny, you wouldn't leave breadcrumbs. No. Their first warning would be dozens upon dozens of wights, out of their control, in a sudden assault. Why? Because, this is an attempt to distort the system. And when you attempt to distort the system, the system attempts to distort you right back.

Thus, that first attempt that was made at commanding them? In my campaign? TPK.

Your attempt above? TPK.

Oh, this would have a lasting impact on the world, in either case. But those who attempt to show the hubris to wield power beyond their means will face that level of power, and, if possible, that very power they thought to "control". May just be my love for Jurassic Park that brings this to me. Or a love for a fun game where everyone contributes, rather than "Necro and minions". Who knows?

[Aquillion]

My players don't receive warnings when they try this sort of thing. After all, if you were planning a mutiny, you wouldn't leave breadcrumbs. No. Their first warning would be dozens upon dozens of wights, out of their control, in a sudden assault. Why? Because, this is an attempt to distort the system. And when you attempt to distort the system, the system attempts to distort you right back.

Thus, that first attempt that was made at commanding them? In my campaign? TPK.

Your attempt above? TPK.

Oh, this would have a lasting impact on the world, in either case. But those who attempt to show the hubris to wield power beyond their means will face that level of power, and, if possible, that very power they thought to "control". May just be my love for Jurassic Park that brings this to me. Or a love for a fun game where everyone contributes, rather than "Necro and minions". Who knows?Isn't that a sort of harsh way of looking at it?

I mean, I don't have anything against it going catastrophically wrong, since it is something with lots of potential for going catastrophically wrong. But I kinda don't like the way you seem to be saying "I will go out of my way to look for ways exploits could go catastrophically wrong, and guarantee that they go wrong every single time, completely and totally lethally without exception, because my players -- that is, the people sitting across the table from me -- deserve to have their characters killed for trying to break the rules."

Out-of-character problems should be solved through out-of-character discussions. Sure, if your players' characters stick their hands in the fire like this, let them get burned, but viewing yourself as a holy sacred avenger for the rules against people who would exploit them strikes me as a bad way of seeing it. If you've got a problem with the way your players are playing your game, you should stop things and talk that out with them so you can decide on a way to proceed that everyone enjoys; you shouldn't DM-smite their characters for revenge.

Some groups like to play completely insane campaigns like this, using logic to break the system all over the place; some DMs love to twist around with it and have the players going from one such hairbrained scheme to the next, constantly using them as plot hooks and trying to think up ways to challenge (note, challenge, not guaranteed-TPK-as-punishment) them despite all their efforts. It is possible to turn a hairbrained scheme like this into a plot hook without going out of your way to use your power as DM to absolutely ensure that every single player involved dies regardless of their precautions.

If you don't enjoy that sort of silliness, just tell your players upfront; you're the DM, you're entitled to simply say no, you can't take over the campaign; do something else in a case like this. But using your power as DM to "punish" players for playing the game in a way you don't like is a terrible way to DM. How are they supposed to know what you like if you don't tell them?