Necromancer's army

[MaxWilson]

Idle question:

If your player's Necromancer said he wanted to buy chain mail, shields, and longswords for all of his zombies, and chain mail, longbows, and dual shortswords for all of his skeletons... which of those items (chain mail, longbows, dual wielding, shortswords, longswords) would you rule that the skeletons and zombies had proficiency in?

The powergamer in me thinks that AC 16, 30+ HP skeletons attacking twice per round d6+8 and d6+6 respectively is hilariously awesome, especially after one of the zombies knocks the target prone for advantage. The rules lawyer in me thinks it's perfectly legal. The game designer in me thinks it's yet another example of how broken minions are in 5E. The DM in me suspects that many DMs would veto it because skeletons aren't PCs.

[KiltieMacPipes]

I'd probably let it happen, but he's eventually going to start attracting the attention of holy warriors and other forces of good that are unlikely to care that he's neutral or what justification he uses to make animating the dead not an evil act.

[Flashy]

I run a campaign with factions that literally do this, so it would be outright unfair to not let PCs do it too.

[JackPhoenix]

I see three options: Either they get the proficiencies they had in life, which mean more bookkeeping for the DM, or, being pretty much mindless and just an extension of the necromancer's will, they get the same proficiencies as him, giving a slight advantage to Death cleric over Necromancer wizard. Or they get nothing, being mindless.

I, personally, prefer the second option.

[Addaran]

I'd probably let him. Everytime there's a hard battle (fireball throwing enemies) or that in goes into a city and can't keep his minions, he'll have to find a way to carry 8 chainmails, shields and a ****load of weapons. By weight and by size, it's not easy to do. =P

Or maybe restrict the proficiency to warrior-ish. All simple weapons, shields and either up to medium or light armor.

P.S. Eight is the magic number of minions right? It's always that i see when people mention necromancers...

[Tanarii]

I'd allow it in a sandbox game. I allow Evil PCs in my sandbox environments to get away with more **** mechanically. Because they face a lot more severe consequences for their actions. Usually they get themselves or the party killed off by the law or do-gooders in fairly short order. In the case of a necromancer, they're going to draw a lot of powerful do-gooders trying to wipe them out PDQ.

Just so long as they direct their evil away from the party, and the other players (not characters) are okay with evil pcs, I'm okay with them because of this.

[Slipperychicken]

Maybe if they were proficient during life. Otherwise, I have no idea why being undead automatically makes you good with things you didn't even know in life.

Still, minions are kind of busted in 5e due to bounded accuracy. There's a good reason why they have so many restrictions and aren't available until 5th level.

[Belac93]

I would not allow zombies to have any equipment other than armor, and skeletons could have whatever. Skeletons are smarter than zombies, but since they have low strength, they cannot wear as much armor. So it makes it a little more balanced, with skeletons as glass cannons and zombies as tanks.

[MaxWilson]

I would not allow zombies to have any equipment other than armor, and skeletons could have whatever. Skeletons are smarter than zombies, but since they have low strength, they cannot wear as much armor. So it makes it a little more balanced, with skeletons as glass cannons and zombies as tanks.

The MM says zombies will use weapons if you give them weapons, but won't pick them up once dropped. That's actually what got me thinking asking these lines originally.

[Shaofoo]

Sure he can buy weapons and armor but then he'd have to potentially have people investigating why do you need so many weapons and armor. Of course maybe in your games skeletons and zombies are okey dokey shambling around in public and it is totally legit saying I want to buy weapons for my undead army in game but in my games necromancy is taboo at best. Potentially even if you didn't have a huge undead army people might be curious that you are outfitting some kind of army and even if your army is made of the undead, pixies or disgruntled farmers you would still be in big trouble if you did such a thing.

So sure you can do it, just expect people to investigate into your little mass buying spree. Red flags will be triggered and you might be put on trail.

Also undead are the worst when you can have Demiplanes filled with feral undead, just fill them up and lock them behind the plane and then unleash them on the enemy as you move away from the carnage.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'd argue that, unless he gives up his turn to do nothing but command them and give them his proficiencies, they are non-proficient in any weapon they wield expect for fists. They also should not be able to use their bonus action for dual-wielding unless commanded (if at all).

If the necromancer sticks to non-combat spells this shouldn't actually disadvantage him, so apply world-context. He doesn't have 8 retainers, so he gets called in for questioning due to being suspected of being with the local gang/rebellion. Especially for swords, spears and bows are hunting weapons, daggers are useful in everyday life, axes can be used as tools, clubs can be made easily, war-scythes can be improvised from tools, but swords are weapons with few noncombat uses and also noble weapons, buying 8 of them means you expect to arm 8 (possibly trained) combatants. One or two can be interpreted as personal weapon+spare, but buying enough to arm a small squad is incredibly suspicious, especially if he leaves them with dead zombies and buys more from nearby towns. Who do you think bandits use axes, spears, and bows?

Armour is even more suspicious. Most footsoldiers probably don't have more than padded or leather, 8+ suits of mail are a massive warning sign, I'd rule that most armoursmiths wouldn't have it on hand. If it gets out that he's buying it he really should not be surprised when the guards come along and ask him about it.

[JackPhoenix]

snip

That's more of a setting dependant, don't you think? Sure, in medieval Europe, buying arms and armor en masse may raise some questions...in Forgotten Realms, Eberron etc., nobody will care if you're buying the weapons and armor to sell elsewhere, for your own use, to arm your personal guard, or to form up a mercenary company. You can just have a bunch of hirelings, not an army of zombies.

Your fighter can buy full plate without explaining where did he got the gold for it, what does he need it for when he's not a nobleman, etc.. Bunch of swords and bows is nothing.

Also, if you look at MM, most footsoldiers have chain shirts if they are just lowly guards, or splint mail if they have enough experience to be veterans.

[Shaofoo]

That's more of a setting dependant, don't you think? Sure, in medieval Europe, buying arms and armor en masse may raise some questions...in Forgotten Realms, Eberron etc., nobody will care if you're buying the weapons and armor to sell elsewhere, for your own use, to arm your personal guard, or to form up a mercenary company. You can just have a bunch of hirelings, not an army of zombies.


If you are to make an excuse then I would hope you would put some effort into making the excuse plausible.

If you actually make papers and do the proper channels to make your purchase seem legit then sure, arm up your guys but if you think a simple casual phrase will be enough to placate those who inquire then it will not.

[Flashy]

If you are to make an excuse then I would hope you would put some effort into making the excuse plausible.

If you actually make papers and do the proper channels to make your purchase seem legit then sure, arm up your guys but if you think a simple casual phrase will be enough to placate those who inquire then it will not.

Can we not do the thing where we devolve into telling each other that our various homebrew campaign worlds and interpretations of offical campaign worlds are dumb and bad and wrong?

It's setting dependent. You can run universes where people have to deal with bureaucracy in order to buy lots of weapons and armor, and you can run universes where no one asks too many questions about what you want all that hardware for. You can run universes where necromancy is vile magic loathed by all, and you can run universes where it's basically a cheap source of unskilled labor. No one is right, there are analogs for everything, and there's no real point arguing about how other people like to play the game.

[MaxWilson]

Sure he can buy weapons and armor but then he'd have to potentially have people investigating why do you need so many weapons and armor.

D&D players typically kill so many orcs and hobgoblins that getting weapons and armor shouldn't be a problem. The PHB goes out of its way to claim that you won't be able to sell these weapons and armor for cash (which really makes no sense), but there's no reason they can't be useful anyway.

Of course, the most useful hobgoblin equipment is the equipment still on a living hobgoblin--turning enemies into friends is generally more useful than turning them into corpses, especially with bounded accuracy. You don't need to be a necromancer to have an army of minions in 5E...

(And BTW, Inspiring Leader is a terrific feat for anyone who wants to become a hobgoblin warlord. It almost guarantees that not even a frost giant can insta-kill one of your minions, which means that attrition over time due to death will be low and morale will be high, and your minions will be more willing to do what you're ordering them to do.)

[Shining Wrath]

The fluff text for skeletons says they can perform fairly complex tasks, but require careful training to do so. The fluff text for zombies says they are pretty much morons who will walk out of an open window to attack someone on the street below, walk into raging rivers and be battered to pieces, won't pick up a dropped weapon unless ordered to do so, et cetera.

I'd rule it like this.

Zombies cannot become proficient in anything.

Skeletons can be trained to be proficient in any weapon and any armor, with enough time. This does not transfer; proficiency in the great sword does not grant any proficiency whatsoever to the greataxe, despite their similarity as heavy two-handed slashing weapons. Therefore, your necromancer can train his skeletons to use a single weapon and wear a single type of armor in some reasonable duration set by DM fiat - perhaps a month will suffice, and as many as a dozen skeletons may be trained in parallel.

This allows for "elite" skeletons who are proficient in weapons and armor, but losing them in battle requires you to stop and spend a month training a replacement.

[MaxWilson]

The fluff text for skeletons says they can perform fairly complex tasks, but require careful training to do so. The fluff text for zombies says they are pretty much morons who will walk out of an open window to attack someone on the street below, walk into raging rivers and be battered to pieces, won't pick up a dropped weapon unless ordered to do so, et cetera.

I'd rule it like this.

Zombies cannot become proficient in anything.

Skeletons can be trained to be proficient in any weapon and any armor, with enough time. This does not transfer; proficiency in the great sword does not grant any proficiency whatsoever to the greataxe, despite their similarity as heavy two-handed slashing weapons. Therefore, your necromancer can train his skeletons to use a single weapon and wear a single type of armor in some reasonable duration set by DM fiat - perhaps a month will suffice, and as many as a dozen skeletons may be trained in parallel.

This allows for "elite" skeletons who are proficient in weapons and armor, but losing them in battle requires you to stop and spend a month training a replacement.

Interesting. If this were my DM's ruling, and I were a Necromancer, you'd see three kinds of creatures in my undead army: armored zombies wielding greatswords, regular skeletons wielding shortbows, and "elite" skeletons wielding heavy crossbows and wearing chain mail, with dual short swords strapped to their hip.

The intuition here is that zombies are so bad already that nonproficiency isn't going to hurt them much more; their main job is to physically obstruct and/or attempt opportunity attacks on things that are battering through way through the front line on their way to the back line. In fact I might just set all my armored zombies to Dodge, unless another PC has already knocked a monster prone and triggered Clobberin' Time.

(I was just reading Monster Hunter Vendetta the other day, and the necromancer antagonist in that story showed up with armored zombie bears and zombie elephants (elephant carcasses having been bought off the Internet from zoos and circuses, etc.) and regular zombies that were all wearing helmets so you can't blow their brains out... so armored zombies are very much on my mind.)

Anyway, a dozen elite skeletons sounds like plenty.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Idle question:

If your player's Necromancer said he wanted to buy chain mail, shields, and longswords for all of his zombies, and chain mail, longbows, and dual shortswords for all of his skeletons... which of those items (chain mail, longbows, dual wielding, shortswords, longswords) would you rule that the skeletons and zombies had proficiency in?

The powergamer in me thinks that AC 16, 30+ HP skeletons attacking twice per round d6+8 and d6+6 respectively is hilariously awesome, especially after one of the zombies knocks the target prone for advantage. The rules lawyer in me thinks it's perfectly legal. The game designer in me thinks it's yet another example of how broken minions are in 5E. The DM in me suspects that many DMs would veto it because skeletons aren't PCs.

I would say you would need special armor as skeletons and zombies are not the same size as they were in life. Hell, one of the most inaccurate things about zombie movies is that everyone's pants would stay on... As they rot and decompose they would lose weight....

So it's going to cost extra just for that. Also, no normal place would ever sell a necromancer any armor or weapons. Not without screwing you over or informing people there is an undead armor around.

Shadier places would actually do it, but would cost a bit more (over the already increase cost of weird size armor).

[Shining Wrath]

Interesting. If this were my DM's ruling, and I were a Necromancer, you'd see three kinds of creatures in my undead army: armored zombies wielding greatswords, regular skeletons wielding shortbows, and "elite" skeletons wielding heavy crossbows and wearing chain mail, with dual short swords strapped to their hip.

The intuition here is that zombies are so bad already that nonproficiency isn't going to hurt them much more; their main job is to physically obstruct and/or attempt opportunity attacks on things that are battering through way through the front line on their way to the back line. In fact I might just set all my armored zombies to Dodge, unless another PC has already knocked a monster prone and triggered Clobberin' Time.

(I was just reading Monster Hunter Vendetta the other day, and the necromancer antagonist in that story showed up with armored zombie bears and zombie elephants (elephant carcasses having been bought off the Internet from zoos and circuses, etc.) and regular zombies that were all wearing helmets so you can't blow their brains out... so armored zombies are very much on my mind.)

Anyway, a dozen elite skeletons sounds like plenty.

It'd be a balancing act - up front, I tell the necro "If you start to really outshine the others I might have to modify this" - the month can get longer or shorter for balance, 12 can become 6 or 20.

One other things I always rule is that there are Powers that don't much like undead and necromancers, starting with many druids and fey. A standing army of skeletons can attract attention if you take them to the wrong places or annoy the wrong people.

[Anonymouswizard]

That's more of a setting dependant, don't you think? Sure, in medieval Europe, buying arms and armor en masse may raise some questions...in Forgotten Realms, Eberron etc., nobody will care if you're buying the weapons and armor to sell elsewhere, for your own use, to arm your personal guard, or to form up a mercenary company. You can just have a bunch of hirelings, not an army of zombies.

Your fighter can buy full plate without explaining where did he got the gold for it, what does he need it for when he's not a nobleman, etc.. Bunch of swords and bows is nothing.

Also, if you look at MM, most footsoldiers have chain shirts if they are just lowly guards, or splint mail if they have enough experience to be veterans.

Sorry, I was giving an example on how to lit abuse.

Also, as you've said, it's setting dependent. In my settings the fighter can buy the full plate, although he can't wear it in town, and a sword, as long as he has the cash. Start buying lots and people will get suspicious, buying one suit of armour will go unnoticed, buying ten will get the guards asking questions, buying 100 will get you a polite request to enter this cell or feel this steel sword. However, a guy known to have a few hirelings walking into an armoursmith's and buying 10 breastplates, 10 spears, 10 swords and 10 daggers isn't going to get more than a quick check, if that, as there's a good idea why it's being bought. A member of a merchant's guild ordering 50 axes would barely be registered.

Although I'll admit that in some settings Joe Bloggs can go to 'Murder Mall' and buy 200 swords and 100 suits of chainmail without raising an eyebrow.

[Shaofoo]

Can we not do the thing where we devolve into telling each other that our various homebrew campaign worlds and interpretations of offical campaign worlds are dumb and bad and wrong?

It's setting dependent. You can run universes where people have to deal with bureaucracy in order to buy lots of weapons and armor, and you can run universes where no one asks too many questions about what you want all that hardware for. You can run universes where necromancy is vile magic loathed by all, and you can run universes where it's basically a cheap source of unskilled labor. No one is right, there are analogs for everything, and there's no real point arguing about how other people like to play the game.

But that is the point, since we do not know how the world works then why shouldn't we question one of the potential hangups of actually buying weapons.

But either way it is DM dependant, you can buy weapons in bulk without so much as a weird glance only for the swords and armor to be useless for your undead or you can outfit your group of undead like you would a trained human army only for actually to buy weapons to be a hassle and half.

And quite frankly I don't see how I can argue about which campaign is more dumb than another. I mean why should I care how you run your magic elf fantasy world? It doesn't affect me. Go ahead and let your necromancers summon 500 skeletons in town and no one bat an eye, it won't affect me one iota what happens in your game.

[Laserlight]

But either way it is DM dependant, you can buy weapons in bulk without so much as a weird glance only for the swords and armor to be useless for your undead or you can outfit your group of undead like you would a trained human army only for actually to buy weapons to be a hassle and half.

And quite frankly I don't see how I can argue about which campaign is more dumb than another. I mean why should I care how you run your magic elf fantasy world? It doesn't affect me. Go ahead and let your necromancers summon 500 skeletons in town and no one bat an eye, it won't affect me one iota what happens in your game.

That being the case, perhaps you might stop spending quite so much effort saying "You can't do it"? Such as the false dichotomy you gave in the first paragraph of the quote

Back to OP's question: I would allow him to equip skeletons with armor, shield and weapons--although of course he'd have to pay for them. I might be inclined to give them maces, because a) that's easier to use than a sword, so Proficiency is more plausible to me, b) maces take less skill to manufacture than swords, therefore would cost less, and c) it would amuse me for the skeleton army to be equipped with a weapon to which they're most vulnerable.

Zombies...it kind of depends on how you see zombies. Classic horror movie zombies, I'd say no weapons, no shields, no proficiencies, although you could armor them. But there are other traditions that would let them use weapons.

[Tanarii]

You can run universes where necromancy is vile magic loathed by all, and you can run universes where it's basically a cheap source of unskilled labor.
Folks can do what they want in this regard, but 5e does have a default for this: Animating the dead is not a good action, and only evil spellcasters do it regularly.

[MaxWilson]

Folks can do what they want in this regard, but 5e does have a default for this: Animating the dead is not a good action, and only evil spellcasters do it regularly.

And for those who don't give a fig for the PHB's opinion on morality, there's another thing to keep in mind: a skeleton's default setting is "murder machine". Even with the best of intentions, a necromancer animating skeletons for "cheap labor" is still creating things that will, at the least provocation, murder dozens of men, women, and children unless the necromancer manages to stop them.

In some circumstances it makes sense to fight fire with fire, but no sane person will casually create murderbots on a hair trigger. Necromancy in a time of peace is downright insane, like making VX nerve gas in your basement.

[HoarsHalberd]

That being the case, perhaps you might stop spending quite so much effort saying "You can't do it"? Such as the false dichotomy you gave in the first paragraph of the quote

Back to OP's question: I would allow him to equip skeletons with armor, shield and weapons--although of course he'd have to pay for them. I might be inclined to give them maces, because a) that's easier to use than a sword, so Proficiency is more plausible to me, b) maces take less skill to manufacture than swords, therefore would cost less, and c) it would amuse me for the skeleton army to be equipped with a weapon to which they're most vulnerable.

Zombies...it kind of depends on how you see zombies. Classic horror movie zombies, I'd say no weapons, no shields, no proficiencies, although you could armor them. But there are other traditions that would let them use weapons.

Skeletons already have shortsword proficiency anyway, and it is probably the best weapon for them (rapier is too expensive en masse for 1 average damage.)

[druid91]

It'd be a balancing act - up front, I tell the necro "If you start to really outshine the others I might have to modify this" - the month can get longer or shorter for balance, 12 can become 6 or 20.

One other things I always rule is that there are Powers that don't much like undead and necromancers, starting with many druids and fey. A standing army of skeletons can attract attention if you take them to the wrong places or annoy the wrong people.


One thing that I found as a Necromancer. Is that by and large, I didn't outshine the others because I was using my limited supply of minions mostly to serve as a shield for me and occasionally them. Sure they did damage now and then, but no matter what equipment setup you give them, unless you start giving them magical weapons, they simply aren't going to do as much damage as a PC. Because every time you go into combat you're going to lose a ton of them.

[MaxWilson]

One thing that I found as a Necromancer. Is that by and large, I didn't outshine the others because I was using my limited supply of minions mostly to serve as a shield for me and occasionally them. Sure they did damage now and then, but no matter what equipment setup you give them, unless you start giving them magical weapons, they simply aren't going to do as much damage as a PC. Because every time you go into combat you're going to lose a ton of them.

Play experiences vary, I guess. The way I've seen skeletons used, losses among them are minimal. PCs are the front-line tanks so the skeletons can play arty support. And they do sickening amounts of damage in large numbers.

[Finieous]

Maybe I'm just old-school, but from a player perspective, it seems a lot easier to just hire henchmen. Sure, they're not mindless undead slaves, but on the other hand, they're not mindless undead slaves. From a roleplaying perspective, a paladin (or sorcerer, or cleric, or bard, or rogue, or fighter) with a troop of men-at-arms seems less likely to bring out the torches and pitchforks than a necromancer with a small horde of undead. Equipping them seems like a more straightforward matter, too.

[JoeJ]

Maybe I'm just old-school, but from a player perspective, it seems a lot easier to just hire henchmen. Sure, they're not mindless undead slaves, but on the other hand, they're not mindless undead slaves. From a roleplaying perspective, a paladin (or sorcerer, or cleric, or bard, or rogue, or fighter) with a troop of men-at-arms seems less likely to bring out the torches and pitchforks than a necromancer with a small horde of undead. Equipping them seems like a more straightforward matter, too.

What player character would ever do something that straightforward and logical?

[MaxWilson]

Maybe I'm just old-school, but from a player perspective, it seems a lot easier to just hire henchmen. Sure, they're not mindless undead slaves, but on the other hand, they're not mindless undead slaves. From a roleplaying perspective, a paladin (or sorcerer, or cleric, or bard, or rogue, or fighter) with a troop of men-at-arms seems less likely to bring out the torches and pitchforks than a necromancer with a small horde of undead. Equipping them seems like a more straightforward matter, too.

I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned both approaches in this thread, because yes, both approaches are excellent. Main advantage of the skeletons is that you don't have to pay for funerals or pensions for their widows, and you don't have to feel bad if they die. In other words, skeletons are expendable.

But by all means, roll with the setting. If human life is cheap and skeletons and pitchforks are a concern, go ahead and hire henchmen. As mentioned above, I highly recommend hobgoblins. Take Inspiring Leader.

[Anonymouswizard]

And for those who don't give a fig for the PHB's opinion on morality, there's another thing to keep in mind: a skeleton's default setting is "murder machine". Even with the best of intentions, a necromancer animating skeletons for "cheap labor" is still creating things that will, at the least provocation, murder dozens of men, women, and children unless the necromancer manages to stop them.

In some circumstances it makes sense to fight fire with fire, but no sane person will casually create murderbots on a hair trigger. Necromancy in a time of peace is downright insane, like making VX nerve gas in your basement.

Ah, I miss the 3.X undead, where the murder machines had just been told 'guard this place'.


Maybe I'm just old-school, but from a player perspective, it seems a lot easier to just hire henchmen. Sure, they're not mindless undead slaves, but on the other hand, they're not mindless undead slaves. From a roleplaying perspective, a paladin (or sorcerer, or cleric, or bard, or rogue, or fighter) with a troop of men-at-arms seems less likely to bring out the torches and pitchforks than a necromancer with a small horde of undead. Equipping them seems like a more straightforward matter, too.

Yep, suppliers can rest in the comfort of knowing that their weapons probably aren't going to the local bandit clan.

[HoarsHalberd]

I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned both approaches in this thread, because yes, both approaches are excellent. Main advantage of the skeletons is that you don't have to pay for funerals or pensions for their widows, and you don't have to feel bad if they die. In other words, skeletons are expendable.

But by all means, roll with the setting. If human life is cheap and skeletons and pitchforks are a concern, go ahead and hire henchmen. As mentioned above, I highly recommend hobgoblins. Take Inspiring Leader.

I came up with an idea during my last campaign to prevent the pitchforks actually. I draped them in cloth and then used lots of ripped up cloth to stuff them, then when I got richer I bought goggles for them, thus instead of undead they seemed to be more my personal honour guard.

[MaxWilson]

I came up with an idea during my last campaign to prevent the pitchforks actually. I draped them in cloth and then used lots of ripped up cloth to stuff them, then when I got richer I bought goggles for them, thus instead of undead they seemed to be more my personal honour guard.

Seeming is pretty good too, but your way does sound cheaper. Nice, if it works. :)

[Shining Wrath]

I came up with an idea during my last campaign to prevent the pitchforks actually. I draped them in cloth and then used lots of ripped up cloth to stuff them, then when I got richer I bought goggles for them, thus instead of undead they seemed to be more my personal honour guard.

That might work on the typical city guard - less likely with a druid or a cleric (high wisdom), and not going to work at all on Fey (a sprite touches them to use heart sense and finds there isn't a heart). It is clever, though, and it does solve the problem of taking your horde through town.

Zombies would still stink, badly, so this is another example of the skeleton being the superior undead minion.

[MaxWilson]

Zombies would still stink, badly, so this is another example of the skeleton being the superior undead minion.

They're already in rags, so just disguise them as homeless lepers. ;-)

[Shaofoo]

That being the case, perhaps you might stop spending quite so much effort saying "You can't do it"? Such as the false dichotomy you gave in the first paragraph of the quote


Mind explaining to me how "It is up to the DM" means that "You can't do it". Sure in my games if you can't go "Give me 20 of your finest swords and armor chopchop" means "You can't do it" then that is on you, not me. Cause I said that you need to actually have some sort of valid excuse to buy things in bulk, that doesn't mean that "You can't do it"

Also mind explaining the false ditchomy of the first paragraph cause I never made both of those to be the only two examples. You can buy swords in bulk and have your undead army use them or you can have a hell of a time getting swords only for your army to not be able to use them.

But then I was thinking to get back on topic. I'd probably only allow simple one handed and non versatile weapons to be held by zombies and one handed weapons of any kind (up to martial just in case we get exotic weapons down the line) to be held by skeletons.


What player character would ever do something that straightforward and logical?

Henchmen are not in the PHB, it is basically up to the DM to allow or reject. It'd be like saying what player character wouldn't craft their own magic items?

So basically they wouldn't do it cause it might not even be an option.

[JackPhoenix]

They're already in rags, so just disguise them as homeless lepers. ;-)

No city in it's right mind would allow those in its walls, though.

And while skeletons don't stink, they rattle and are harder to disguise, having no flesh on their bones...that will be a lot of padding.

Better to keep your undead army parked outside the city, all things considered.


But then I was thinking to get back on topic. I'd probably only allow simple one handed and non versatile weapons to be held by zombies and one handed weapons of any kind (up to martial just in case we get exotic weapons down the line) to be held by skeletons.

I'd go with the caster's proficiencies for the zombies (they are just an extension of his/her will, after all), and the same/whatever they knew in life for skeletons, whichever is better. Forbidding two-handed weapons doesn't make any sense to me...spear or staff is easier to use then a sword

[Tanarii]

Monsters don't even need proficiency, do they? That's a PC thing isn't it?

[SharkForce]

the skeletons in the monster manual already *have* proficiencies.

2 of the 3 skeleton examples in the MM are wearing (damaged) armour, and 2 of the 3 are using weapons.

furthermore, the skeleton entry explicitly states "a skeleton can fight with weapons and wear armour, can load and fire a catapult or trebuchet..."

the skeleton that the animate dead spell is most likely supposed to create, in particular, is using a short sword, a short bow, and (damaged) armour, all with proficiency. there is absolutely no question as to whether they can use weapons. they can, and do. and since it seems incredibly unlikely that anyone sat down and spent a month or more training every single default skeleton in the world, in all likelihood it doesn't take much training to get the skeletons proficient, or they must start with it. it does also seem likely that skeletons will have the proficiencies of their former lives; the book mentions skeletons in a dance hall dancing, skeletons of a miner using a pick to mine walls, etc, which would certainly suggest they remember how to do things they could do in life, at least to some extent.

zombies, well, just shove them in armour anyways, i guess. who cares if they're proficient, the only reason you'd be making them in the first place is as a wall of meat.

[MaxWilson]

No city in it's right mind would allow those in its walls, though.

And while skeletons don't stink, they rattle and are harder to disguise, having no flesh on their bones...that will be a lot of padding.

Better to keep your undead army parked outside the city, all things considered.

Oh, yes, absolutely, of course. I've never actually seen a 5E necromancer try to bring his skeleton with him on a public excursion within the city. The closest I've seen is one with four skeletons in his residence who serve him as (creepy) butlers and bodyguards; and another who left his skeletons on his spelljamming ship (under heavy and nervous guard by port authorities) while he did his work in-town.

[Shining Wrath]

Monsters don't even need proficiency, do they? That's a PC thing isn't it?

If you look at to-hit numbers and skill abilities for creatures in the MM, they usually assume a proficiency. In the DMG section on homebrew monsters it gives a "standard" proficiency for monsters by CR.

[Tanarii]

If you look at to-hit numbers and skill abilities for creatures in the MM, they usually assume a proficiency. In the DMG section on homebrew monsters it gives a "standard" proficiency for monsters by CR.I'm not talking about the proficiency bonus. What I mean is, don't monsters get that bonus with whatever attacks they use automatically? Requiring proficiency to get it is a PC thing, isn't it?

[Shining Wrath]

I'm not talking about the proficiency bonus. What I mean is, don't monsters get that bonus with whatever attacks they use automatically? Requiring proficiency to get it is a PC thing, isn't it?

So a skeleton by default is proficient with short swords and short bows, and "scraps of armor". If you want to kit them out with other stuff, they ought not to be proficient unless you train them.

[Segev]

Doesn't the Necromancer specialization grant his undead minions HIS proficiency bonus on all attacks and damage rolls?

[Shining Wrath]

Doesn't the Necromancer specialization grant his undead minions HIS proficiency bonus on all attacks and damage rolls?

But not with weapons or armor they aren't proficient in using ...

[HoarsHalberd]

Doesn't the Necromancer specialization grant his undead minions HIS proficiency bonus on all attacks and damage rolls?

Yup, but sacrificing +2 to hit from the monsters proficiencies with their own attacks is a big deal, and none of this affects what armour they can wear.

[Tanarii]

So a skeleton by default is proficient with short swords and short bows, and "scraps of armor". If you want to kit them out with other stuff, they ought not to be proficient unless you train them.Hmmm. I thought monsters (and NPCs designed using the monster rules) were just proficient with *any* attack. Not just ones specific to their stats. But I suppose it's a reasonable assumption that they just wouldn't use an attack if they weren't proficient, so it would never show up in stats.


Doesn't the Necromancer specialization grant his undead minions HIS proficiency bonus on all attacks and damage rolls?Thats on top of the creature's stats. Which include its own proficiency bonus.

[Desamir]

Doesn't the Necromancer specialization grant his undead minions HIS proficiency bonus on all attacks and damage rolls?

Damage rolls only, not attack rolls.

[SharkForce]

Hmmm. I thought monsters (and NPCs designed using the monster rules) were just proficient with *any* attack. Not just ones specific to their stats. But I suppose it's a reasonable assumption that they just wouldn't use an attack if they weren't proficient, so it would never show up in stats.

Thats on top of the creature's stats. Which include its own proficiency bonus.

iirc there's a section on variant monsters that mentions other weapons might be possible, but the stat block simply does not include every proficiency because it doesn't include every weapon. there are almost certainly orcs that are proficient with all manner of weapons in the world, but for the regular stat block, they just chose one specific weapon to give orcs to use.

[JoeJ]

Henchmen are not in the PHB, it is basically up to the DM to allow or reject.

Mercenary soldiers as skilled hirelings can be found on p. 159 of the PHB. They cost 2 gp per day. Further details on how to run them are on pp. 92-94 of the DMG.

[Shaofoo]

Mercenary soldiers as skilled hirelings can be found on p. 159 of the PHB. They cost 2 gp per day. Further details on how to run them are on pp. 92-94 of the DMG.

Still doesn't invalidate my point, the DM can still allow or deny such people and still be within RAW 100% of the time. You as a player aren't guaranteed to have hirelings around and it doesn't guarantee that you will get the hirelings that you want and the amount that you want. The DM holds all the cards by RAW.

[Douche]

Monsters get proficiency bonuses? I didn't know that

[Finieous]

Henchmen are not in the PHB, it is basically up to the DM to allow or reject. It'd be like saying what player character wouldn't craft their own magic items?



Mercenary soldiers as skilled hirelings can be found on p. 159 of the PHB. They cost 2 gp per day. Further details on how to run them are on pp. 92-94 of the DMG.


Still doesn't invalidate my point, the DM can still allow or deny such people and still be within RAW 100% of the time.

Is it so hard to just say, "I stand corrected" and move on? How do you expect to have a rational conversation around here?

[JackPhoenix]

Still doesn't invalidate my point, the DM can still allow or deny such people and still be within RAW 100% of the time. You as a player aren't guaranteed to have hirelings around and it doesn't guarantee that you will get the hirelings that you want and the amount that you want. The DM holds all the cards by RAW.

DM can allow or disallow anything, equipment, spells, classes or races, PHB or not. That does not invalidate the fact that the options exist in PHB. The players may also decide that they don't want to play the game where the only allowed character is a gnome barbarian using net.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

DM can allow or disallow anything, equipment, spells, classes or races, PHB or not. That does not invalidate the fact that the options exist in PHB. The players may also decide that they don't want to play the game where the only allowed character is a gnome barbarian using net.

That is true for every edition of D&D.

Though I will say that one player shouldn't have any say over what another player is playing. That is just a jerk move.

[JoeJ]

Still doesn't invalidate my point, the DM can still allow or deny such people and still be within RAW 100% of the time. You as a player aren't guaranteed to have hirelings around and it doesn't guarantee that you will get the hirelings that you want and the amount that you want. The DM holds all the cards by RAW.

Only by invoking Rule 0. By that metric, the DM can also decide that Animate Dead doesn't work, so you can't count on necromancy working either. There's every bit as much RAW support for having an army of hirelings as an army of undead.

[MaxWilson]

iirc there's a section on variant monsters that mentions other weapons might be possible, but the stat block simply does not include every proficiency because it doesn't include every weapon. there are almost certainly orcs that are proficient with all manner of weapons in the world, but for the regular stat block, they just chose one specific weapon to give orcs to use.

Maybe this guy is an orc?

https://youtu.be/NvnjQSfht9k?t=11

[Desamir]

Only by invoking Rule 0. By that metric, the DM can also decide that Animate Dead doesn't work, so you can't count on necromancy working either. There's every bit as much RAW support for having an army of hirelings as an army of undead.

This is a questionable comparison. A Wizard gains access to Animate Dead by 5th level without DM intervention. A PC will not gain access to hirelings unless the DM expressly puts access to them in his campaign. Animate Dead is opt-out, while hirelings are opt-in.

[HoarsHalberd]

Only by invoking Rule 0. By that metric, the DM can also decide that Animate Dead doesn't work, so you can't count on necromancy working either. There's every bit as much RAW support for having an army of hirelings as an army of undead.

Not necessarily by invoking rule 0. It is obvious you can't just buy goods or services whilst in the middle of nowhere. Thus until you reach a location that has mercenaries for sale you will not be able to hire them. Also seeing as these are individuals with their own goals, chief amongst them being the obtaining of money, it would be a poor DM who RPs them as loyal automatons like the undead are. If you with the aid of a mercenary group, kill a dragon and obtain a horde larger than they will earn from you in a year, they're going to demand some of the stuff themselves.

[JoeJ]

This is a questionable comparison. A Wizard gains access to Animate Dead by 5th level without DM intervention. A PC will not gain access to hirelings unless the DM expressly puts access to them in his campaign. Animate Dead is opt-out, while hirelings are opt-in.

Access to the spell is useless without bones or corpses to animate. A PC will not gain access to those unless the DM expressly puts either dead bodies or killable monsters in the game. That's the same level of opt-in as the DM expressly putting in villages where PCs can purchase ordinary goods and services. The default D&D campaign assumes the PCs are adventuring in a world, not locked in a room somewhere.

[Shining Wrath]

From my DM perspective, the difference between hiring mercs at 2 GP / day and having skeletons is when and how they'll disobey.

Skeletons will kill if they can. If the necromancer doesn't maintain control, his minions *want* to kill. It's an interesting question what the skeletons do if the necromancer dies; pretty sure they don't vanish.

Mercs are presumably more humane, although a bunch of CE mercenaries might be functionally equivalent to skeletons. But Mercs have a much stronger sense of self-preservation; skeletons are going to follow the necromancer into battle against the frost giant hordes, but mercenaries might need a charismatic leader to persuade them before they'd do that.

[Shaofoo]

Access to the spell is useless without bones or corpses to animate. A PC will not gain access to those unless the DM expressly puts either dead bodies or killable monsters in the game. That's the same level of opt-in as the DM expressly putting in villages where PCs can purchase ordinary goods and services. The default D&D campaign assumes the PCs are adventuring in a world, not locked in a room somewhere.

Quite frankly, if you think like that then why do you even play D&D. It just seems that you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Also just because the DM puts in places to buy stuff doesn't mean that everything in the list goes. I doubt your common peasant village will have the requirements to allow the purchase of a boat or an elephant or even more uncommon goods like potions and poisons. Sure I was corrected that hirelings and explicitley mercenaries are in the PHB but that doesn't make them a no brainer any more than constantly buying poison and applying to your weapons is also a no brainer because you will deal more damage.

Basically you are saying that it is RAW that the entire list of items can be bought at any time regardless of setting, location or even common laws.

[HoarsHalberd]

Access to the spell is useless without bones or corpses to animate. A PC will not gain access to those unless the DM expressly puts either dead bodies or killable monsters in the game. That's the same level of opt-in as the DM expressly putting in villages where PCs can purchase ordinary goods and services. The default D&D campaign assumes the PCs are adventuring in a world, not locked in a room somewhere.

A village isn't going to have a team of people ready at the drop of a hat to risk life and limb for someone they don't know. Both of you are steadfastly defending your point to the point of making it indefensible. Learn to compromise and accept that yes mercenaries are relatively common but significantly less common, reliable and replacable than undead.

[MaxWilson]

Skeletons will kill if they can. If the necromancer doesn't maintain control, his minions *want* to kill. It's an interesting question what the skeletons do if the necromancer dies; pretty sure they don't vanish.

I'd turn them all into murder-machines as soon as the 24-hour duration on the last cast expires. Until then, they'll continue obeying the Necromancer's last orders.

What would you do?

================================================== =====


A village isn't going to have a team of people ready at the drop of a hat to risk life and limb for someone they don't know. Both of you are steadfastly defending your point to the point of making it indefensible. Learn to compromise and accept that yes mercenaries are relatively common but significantly less common, reliable and replacable than undead.

I dunno, humanoid opponents like hobgoblins and orcs are pretty common in 5E too, and an application of Mass Suggestion turns them into mercenaries. I think both approaches are viable, and so is straight-up summoning/Planar Binding.

It's not obvious to me which of these approaches is most likely to be cost-effective in a given dungeon.

[JoeJ]

Quite frankly, if you think like that then why do you even play D&D. It just seems that you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Pot, meet kettle.


Also just because the DM puts in places to buy stuff doesn't mean that everything in the list goes. I doubt your common peasant village will have the requirements to allow the purchase of a boat or an elephant or even more uncommon goods like potions and poisons. Sure I was corrected that hirelings and explicitley mercenaries are in the PHB but that doesn't make them a no brainer any more than constantly buying poison and applying to your weapons is also a no brainer because you will deal more damage.

Basically you are saying that it is RAW that the entire list of items can be bought at any time regardless of setting, location or even common laws.

I said nothing of the kind. Troops aren't available for hire everywhere, just like bodies aren't available everywhere. If you're going to invoke setting, location, and common laws to restrict hiring mercenaries, it's a bit inconsistent to ignore those things when digging up graves.

Certainly in our world, hiring a bunch of armed bodyguards is much more commonly legal than exhuming graves, and that's without the threat that somebody is going to turn the corpse into a self-propelled murder machine. In a world where Animate Dead is a thing, I'm having a hard time thinking of why most societies bury their dead at all instead of cremating them.

[Tanarii]

A village isn't going to have a team of people ready at the drop of a hat to risk life and limb for someone they don't know. Both of you are steadfastly defending your point to the point of making it indefensible. Learn to compromise and accept that yes mercenaries are relatively common but significantly less common, reliable and replacable than undead.While I agree they're both taking fairly extreme positions ... given it's a forum I'd expect nothing less ... you're making a huge judgement in claiming that mercenaries are LESS common, reliable or replaceable than undead.

Undead require a level three spell to get, or level 5 minumum. Mercs cost 2gp per day. A group of level one adventurers can hire a merc each for up to 5 days using typical starting cash. That can double the party size right out the gate for the first adventure.

And 'common' is going to be highly setting dependent on how acceptable undead are, or for that matter how acceptable evil spell casters (or even just evil PCs) are. On the flip side, how available Mercs are to level 1 adventurers is also going to be fairly setting dependent. So claiming one or the other is automatically more common, reliable or replaceable isn't called for IMO.

Edit: AFB so I have no idea what the DMG says about using Mercs.

[Shaofoo]

Pot, meet kettle.

I am not the one that basically defeated the purpose of D&D to make a point dude.


I said nothing of the kind. Troops aren't available for hire everywhere, just like bodies aren't available everywhere. If you're going to invoke setting, location, and common laws to restrict hiring mercenaries, it's a bit inconsistent to ignore those things when digging up graves.

You said that one must invoke rule 0 to prevent players from getting mercenaries. Basically saying that players have all the right to get mercenaries regardless of what the DM says.


Certainly in our world, hiring a bunch of armed bodyguards is much more commonly legal than exhuming graves, and that's without the threat that somebody is going to turn the corpse into a self-propelled murder machine. In a world where Animate Dead is a thing, I'm having a hard time thinking of why most societies bury their dead at all instead of cremating them.

You seem to forget that most D&D players have a steady supply of bodies. I don't see very many adventuring necromancers resorting to corpse robbing when you have such a steady supply of slain enemies. I mean unless we are playing in a box as you say.

Also I don't see your point? That somehow because one guy can have minions then everyone should have the recourse to get minions in one way or another?

But that is a rhetorical question, we are getting off topic.

[HoarsHalberd]

While I agree they're both taking fairly extreme positions ... given it's a forum I'd expect nothing less ... you're making a huge judgement in claiming that mercenaries are LESS common, reliable or replaceable than undead.

Undead require a level three spell to get, or level 5 minumum. Mercs cost 2gp per day. A group of level one adventurers can hire a merc each for up to 5 days using typical starting cash. That can double the party size right out the gate for the first adventure.

And 'common' is going to be highly setting dependent on how acceptable undead are, or for that matter how acceptable evil spell casters (or even just evil PCs) are. On the flip side, how available Mercs are to level 1 adventurers is also going to be fairly setting dependent. So claiming one or the other is automatically more common, reliable or replaceable isn't called for IMO.

Edit: AFB so I have no idea what the DMG says about using Mercs.

Sorry, what I meant was "a source of undead is going to be more reliable and common." (I.e. dead humanoids) And replacable is fairly obvious, a merc dies, he's dead, a skeleton dies most of the time he'll be repairable next morning. But the reliability of the skeletons is a debatable issue I'll grant you that, depends which is more common the caster being unable to re-up them or the mercs getting gold lust. And evil spell casters is subjective, whilst in the standard world for some reason using undead is considered evil, in my settings at least pragmatic neutrals are more than happy to have a small cadre used responsibly. (They're less dangerous to have in towns than conjured elementals who go rogue if you lose concentration.)

[Tanarii]

Sorry, what I meant was "a source of undead is going to be more reliable and common." (I.e. dead humanoids) And replacable is fairly obvious, a merc dies, he's dead, a skeleton dies most of the time he'll be repairable next morning.Actually, when a merc dies, I'd say you've got a handy zombie or skeleton. :smallwink:

[JoeJ]

I am not the one that basically defeated the purpose of D&D to make a point dude.

Hunh? The purpose of D&D is to avoid hiring people? I don't understand your point at all.


You said that one must invoke rule 0 to prevent players from getting mercenaries. Basically saying that players have all the right to get mercenaries regardless of what the DM says.

The same right a caster has to get either a component pouch or a focus, nothing more. Or armor and weapons for that matter. A world in which nobody can hire troops would be extremely odd, and it certainly isn't the default described in the PHB.


Also I don't see your point? That somehow because one guy can have minions then everyone should have the recourse to get minions in one way or another?

"Should" doesn't even enter into it. Any character who goes into town with money to can get minions, just like they can get an animal companion or any other normal product or service.

[druid91]

Henchmen are not in the PHB, it is basically up to the DM to allow or reject. It'd be like saying what player character wouldn't craft their own magic items?

So basically they wouldn't do it cause it might not even be an option.

They are in the PHB. In the table for services. Skilled Hirelings=Expert Craftsman, loremasters, and Mercenary soldiers. Each costs 2gp per day.

[Segev]

If you are a Necromancer, at higher level your proficiency bonus will be higher than that of the mercenaries you are likely hiring for a measly 2 gp/day. Since your undead use your proficiency on attack rolls and damage rolls with weapons, skeletons/zombies actually are superior minions for you in combat.

Now, of course, what you can do is hire a number of mercenaries for 2 gp/day, and have them work alongside your undead minions. Now, when your undead minions die, you still have mercenaries...who will probably also die, and become replacement minions.

If the still-living ones object to this treatment of their dead compatriots, they can always take it up with said former companions, who will happily issue them their...severance packages on your behalf.