How do you balance mid level Necromancers without punishing the player?

[TheUser]

Supposing a player has a handful of skeletal minions and/or zombies (A dozen is easy enough to accrue) and you want to preserve table integrity and avoid turn bloating. Even a level 6 necromancer can maintain this level of control easily thanks to arcane recovery and Animate Dead's re-cast efficiency but it trivializes deadly encounters and spotlight's a single player heavily.

If the player is taking care to keep undead minions well spaced out and behind cover what can a DM do to combat this without the player feeling picked on? If you obliterate the minions with broad sweeping uncounterable AoE, stop the player from disguising their horde to enter towns or reduce/minimize humanoid opponents for fresh corpses all of these factors can cripple the exact feature this player has chosen to capitalize on for their strength.


Having used mass-monster hit charts to accelerate and unbloat the player's turn seems to just make the DPR the only problem (especially if the wizard can blind the target). You have a PC who's shelling out 3-4x as much DPR on a consistent basis....

Thoughts?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Supposing a player has a handful of skeletal minions and/or zombies (A dozen is easy enough to accrue) and you want to preserve table integrity and avoid turn bloating. Even a level 6 necromancer can maintain this level of control easily thanks to arcane recovery and Animate Dead's re-cast efficiency but it trivializes deadly encounters and spotlight's a single player heavily.

If the player is taking care to keep undead minions well spaced out and behind cover what can a DM do to combat this without the player feeling picked on? If you obliterate the minions with broad sweeping uncounterable AoE, stop the player from disguising their horde to enter towns or reduce/minimize humanoid opponents for fresh corpses all of these factors can cripple the exact feature this player has chosen to capitalize on for their strength.


Having used mass-monster hit charts to accelerate and unbloat the player's turn seems to just make the DPR the only problem (especially if the wizard can blind the target). You have a PC who's shelling out 3-4x as much DPR on a consistent basis....

Thoughts?

As is my standard advice for these scenarios--talk to the player. Tell him it's becoming un-fun for everyone else and suggest a compromise. Possible compromises--

* Give him a stronger minion, but only one (or two, max).
* Limit the number of minions concurrently summonable.
* Worst case--allow a free respec (different subclass/spells chosen)

Basically, it's not a rules problem. It's a player tactics problem that hurts the table. But don't take unilateral action, talk OOC about it and find a mutually-acceptable resolution.

[Unoriginal]

I'm sorry, but how is the Necromancer disguising a dozen of corpses well enough to bring them in a town?

Also, how are they managing to always make their minions be spaced out and behind cover?

[Zanthy1]

Aside from talking to the player regarding the concerns and coming up with a compromise, the easiest way ive done it is by grouping. Every 3 minions goes at once unless otherwise noted (like a specific one minion holding a torch or something). My favorite compromise is getting rid of the horde or minions and giving 1-3 stronger ones.

My main advice though is the grouping, because your player did build this character to be a minionmancing necromancer, and compromising and other stuff shuts down his specific character. If you group the horde into units, it'll be easier to manage, and let him know he's got to be ready to go, too much time drains from the rest of the party.

[Easy_Lee]

The brief story I'm about to share is relevant.

My girlfriend and I once joined a campaign together. We coordinated beforehand to ensure our characters worked well together, emphasizing each other's abilities and covering for each other's weaknesses. As a result, we outperformed the other players by a wide margin. In some instances, we resolved combat without the other four players having to do anything.

The DM didn't like it. He thought we were too good, and that he'd have to make the encounters more difficult to challenge us.

But the other players didn't care. They thought it was hilarious how effective we were. They threatened NPCs with us. One player made drawings of our characters. It was really cool.

We did not try to draw attention to ourselves. We didn't hog the spotlight or take up all of the playtime. We did what we did, and let the others handle their roles, especially outside of combat.

So, I ask you this: how do the other players feel about the necromancer?
Is he hogging the spotlight?
Do they feel weak compared to him?
Are they unable to contribute?
If it isn't bothering your players, you shouldn't let it bother you.

As far as challenge goes, just make sure you have encounter variety. Skeletons are good against typical enemies: bandits and big strong things. They don't help much against dragons, puzzles, or in social encounters.

[Tanarii]

RAW, only evil spell asters / Necromancers frequently create undead. If they're moving around with undead, they're obviously evil to everyone.

I mean ... in some game even the PCs may take issue. Not that likely, given most players are totally utilitarian, but it's possible. But almost all NPCs are likely to react accordingly.

What magic are they using to disguising the undead sufficiently to sneak them into towns and such?

Necromancers also need dead bodies for zombies, and ones picked clear to the bones for skeletons. How are they getting those?

Necromancers need to issue a bonus action mental commad to each undead for it to do anything, and unless it's the same command to them all, it takes multiple actions. For them all to take cover in the same location is a single action. All to attack the same target is a separate action. All to take cover in different places, multiple bonus actions. All to attack separate specific targets, multiple actions. Of course, you can always Command them 'attack those guys', provided Are mentally clear who they're attacking, but the DM is now determining targets, not you. If you command them to scatter and find cover, they're not attacking that round, and the DM is determining where they go.

Edit: basically, if you're letting the players control them with full control, as if they were PCs, you're doing something wrong. That's not how it works.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As far as challenge goes, just make sure you have encounter variety. Skeletons are good against typical enemies: bandits and big strong things. They don't help much against dragons, puzzles, or in social encounters.

Also--cleric-types (with turn undead) will make bone ash out of them (give them destroy undead as a 6th level cleric). Or something with a natural (non-counterspellable) aoe like a dragon's breath. Reforming his army is not going to be easy (both in time and effort needed to gather corpses). Make sure it's plausible in-universe so as not to be picking out one character. But any way, talk to him first.

As a DM, I don't allow mass minionmancy at my tables--mostly due to the slowing effect. It makes other players check out when one person's turn takes forever. A few creatures (~4-ish)? Sure. 8+? Nope.

[mephnick]

If you obliterate the minions with broad sweeping uncounterable AoE, stop the player from disguising their horde to enter towns...

Thoughts?

I don't really consider this "crippling" the character build, it's just a major weakness the player has to keep in mind. It's not even exploiting metagaming for the DM, I mean, most encounters should have something capable of throwing down AoE's (spellcasters, breath weapons, auras etc). The necromancer will be strong in some encounters and will have to adapt to others, just like any class.

I also don't think saying "you can't bring a horde of undead into a city unnoticed no matter how many robes you put on them" unfair either. Allow him to be strong when he can, but don't hold back on his natural weaknesses for fear of "crippling" his character. That's the character he chose to play. Flying characters make my STR GWM fighter feel pretty bad at times, doesn't mean I don't use them.

[Lombra]

How is a necromancer handling 12 undeads by level 6? I can count up to 8, 3 level 3 slots +1 for animate dead, meaning 4 undeads + one undead for each spell cast because of necromancer subclass.

They're a lot to mantain and refresh. Are you throwing only medium humanoids at them?

[PeteNutButter]

I see the trick is in how intricate of control you allow the PC to have over his undead. He only gets a bonus action to control them all, so I'd say he has to have them all attack the same target. It's totally within the rules, and a potential way to interpret that.

So team skeletons are all going to fire their bows at baddie X. Roll a fistful of d20s, and then a d6 for each one that hit. That shouldn't slow down gameplay significantly. Doing it this way allows the player to have their fun, but doesn't take 10 minutes while he takes 12 different turns. He gets his action and his bonus action is to roll his minions attacks all at once. If they overkill something, so be it.

If the player tries to give more complicated commands like kill my foes, the skeletons are not smart enough to understand who is friend or foe...

Also be sure to occasionally kill a few, so the player has to refresh them.

[JPicasso]

Well, I think it can be argued that a 6th level necromancer cannot maintain a dozen skeletons, but lets say they can. There are lots of issues with this.

1. in town, unless someone is also using illusions or a crazy high disguise skill, the undead won't be walking around. They'd have to be left in boxes or stuffed into a cart. (that the necromancer would have to visit each morning, to cast animate dead, where someone could hear what he's doing. The stable boy earns coppers for tipping off thieves guild when there's a cart that looks interesting.)
2. Anyone who sees a group of skeletons coming at them would try to get AOE spells centered on those skeletons quick.
3. I don't think destroyed skeletons can be reanimated, so he'd have to constantly be getting new ones, and when casting the animate, it's only good for one undead, not the four or six he's maintaining. So time can certainly be a pressure for him.

But notice that he can only issue a single command per turn. He can't micromanage each and every undead separately. He can only choose what undead follows the single command and what ones do not. In fact, this would be a good time for the DM to move the skeletons and zombies as NPCs. Dumb NPCs who take commands too literally sometimes. (Don't punish the guy, just make sure his commands are kept simple)

[Unoriginal]

Also this Necromancer has to spends their spells on their zombies every day. How are they dealing with enemies who attack them?

[Citan]

RAW, only evil spell asters / Necromancers frequently create undead. If they're moving around with undead, they're obviously evil to everyone.

I mean ... in some game even the PCs may take issue. Not that likely, given most players are totally utilitarian, but it's possible. But almost all NPCs are likely to react accordingly.

What magic are they using to disguising the undead sufficiently to sneak them into towns and such?

Necromancers also need dead bodies for zombies, and ones picked clear to the bones for skeletons. How are they getting those?

Necromancers need to issue a bonus action mental commad to each undead for it to do anything, and unless it's the same command to them all, it takes multiple actions. For them all to take cover in the same location is a single action. All to attack the same target is a separate action. All to take cover in different places, multiple bonus actions. All to attack separate specific targets, multiple actions. Of course, you can always Command them 'attack those guys', provided Are mentally clear who they're attacking, but the DM is now determining targets, not you. If you command them to scatter and find cover, they're not attacking that round, and the DM is determining where they go.

Edit: basically, if you're letting the players control them with full control, as if they were PCs, you're doing something wrong. That's not how it works.
I slightly disagree on both premisses...
1) Necromancer is obviously evil.
That is wrong in essence imo: healing and restoration spells are necromancy for many of them, you also have some gods any religious people may refer to also. Create Undead certainly harms many people's beliefs or affects, but I don't see how it would be an evil act by itself, you are just manipulating bones and flesh. How "bad" it would be would depends on the relationship people have with the remainings of their dead.
Consequently, I am 100% behind the fact in most towns the Necromancer would indeed be considered an evil-doer, whatever his true intentions were.
However, in cities affiliated with Death deities, or cities of atheist people, or places filled with scholars or wizards? There is no reason why just having a few undead would make them behave in a blatantly hostile way. They would certainly require the character to stay outside for safety or drop the spell to not alarm citizens, no more.
And when leaving traditional D&d settings (which I'm not very knowledgeable about tbh, usually making my own worlds) what about a primitive warring civilizations? Put some clothes of an enemy army on you undead, and explain to your hosts you can give make undead soldiers using enemy cadavers to help them win: they may be distressed with corpses use, or instead be overjoyous to add insult to injury by proxy...
Basically it would really depend on the settings. No clear idea about WoTC settings as I said, but I don't see the "basic fluff" of necromancy being tightly associated with evil.

2) I'm mixed on a fact that some LG or CG not reacting in an obvious negative way would necessarily betray their alignement or be interepreted by players who don't enforce roleplay. "Lesser of two evils" is a thing. I'd certainly expect a Devotion Paladin to frown upon that, may bitching around, trying to convince Wizard to change his ways, keep him away from corpses, or sometimes "accidentally" slay a melee undead, or even blatantly ("I want this poor soul to be at mercy"). But beyond that, imo it should depend more on the general behaviour of the Necromancer than on the fact he raises deads. If thanks to the Necromancer's undeads's extra help, a bandit attack on a village is averted with no loss among the villagers (whereas there would certainly have been otherwise), the Paladin will certainly "look away" to consider the hard result...

As well as I could see a Necromancer being actually Chaotic Good himself (I don't see how a Necromancer could be Lawful anything though but that may be just me ;)).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I slightly disagree on both premisses...
1) Necromancer is obviously evil.
That is wrong in essence: healing and restoration spells are necromancy for many of them, you also have some gods any religious people may refer to also.
However, I am 100% behind the fact in most towns the Necromancer would indeed be considered an evil-doer, whatever his true intentions were.
In cities affiliated with Death deities, or places filled with scholars or wizards? There is no reason why just having a few undead would make them behave in a blatantly hostile way. They would certainly require the character to stay outside for safety or drop the spell to not alarm citizens, no more.

2) I'm mixed on a fact that some LG or CG not reacting in an obvious negative way would necessarily betray their alignement or be interepreted by players who don't enforce roleplay. "Lesser of two evils" is a thing. I'd certainly expect a Devotion Paladin to frown upon that, may bitching around, trying to convince Wizard to change his ways, keep him away from corpses, or sometimes "accidentally" slay a melee undead, or even blatantly ("I want this poor soul to be at mercy"). But beyond that, imo it should depend more on the general behaviour of the Necromancer than on the fact he raises deads. As well as I could see a Necromancer being actually Chaotic Good himself (I don't see how a Necromancer could be Lawful anything though but that may be just me ;)).

Necromancy in the indicated sense (creating and controlling the undead) is not the same as necromancy the school of magic. Specifically:



Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.


Characters built around raising and controlling the undead should be of evil alignment by nature. In this edition (as in all editions past), this is an intrinsic part of the default setting. DMs (and world-builders) can change this, but by default, a undead-minion-focused character should have an evil alignment. This doesn't mean the DM should force an alignment change, but does mean that good and undead don't go together without special dispensation.

[Citan]

Necromancy in the indicated sense (creating and controlling the undead) is not the same as necromancy the school of magic. Specifically:



Characters built around raising and controlling the undead should be of evil alignment by nature. In this edition (as in all editions past), this is an intrinsic part of the default setting. DMs (and world-builders) can change this, but by default, a undead-minion-focused character should have an evil alignment. This doesn't mean the DM should force an alignment change, but does mean that good and undead don't go together without special dispensation.
Oh, totally forgot about that part.:smalltongue: Well then, my bad, forget what I said. One couldn't defend the fact that a Necromancer Wizard doesn't use Animate Dead "frequently" indeed.:smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh, totally forgot about that part.:smalltongue: Well then, my bad, forget what I said. One couldn't defend the fact that a Necromancer Wizard doesn't use Animate Dead "frequently" indeed.:smallbiggrin:

Exactly. There are quibbles about someone who only uses it once, but if a necromancer who specializes in mass minionmancy (casting multiple times a day to maintain control) doesn't count as casting it "frequently," then, well, ...

[Unoriginal]

1) Necromancer is obviously evil.
That is wrong in essence: healing and restoration spells are necromancy for many of them, you also have some gods any religious people may refer to also.
However, I am 100% behind the fact in most towns the Necromancer would indeed be considered an evil-doer, whatever his true intentions were.
In cities affiliated with Death deities, or places filled with scholars or wizards? There is no reason why just having a few undead would make them behave in a blatantly hostile way. They would certainly require the character to stay outside for safety or drop the spell to not alarm citizens, no more.


Tanarii is referring to the fact creating Undead frequently is referred to as something only evil casters do in the books.

Also, I doubt any sane city, unless one ruled by Undead or their allies, would allow some random people to have an undead squad with them.

We're talking about a bunch of omnicidal, killing-obsessed evil monsters restrained only by a spell.

[Tanarii]

1) Necromancer is obviously evil. I didn't say that. I said only Necromancers (or other spellcasters) who are evil frequently create undead. This is RAW. Literally what's written in the rules, see PhoenixPhyre's quote of the PHB.

Players of non-evil PCs that choose to ignore this are ignoring their character's Alignment motivation. I mean, that's on the player for doing so. The only thing the DM is empowered to do about it would be:
1) Not grant said player inspiration for roleplaying.
2) Enforce in-game consequences for their actions.

However, you're right. They are not necessarily obviously evil to everyone.

In any default / standard campaign, it's likely evidence of their "Evil" is visible, and in a way that NPCs will find repulsive. But that's somewhat campaign specific of course.

Whether or not PCs/NPCs regard creating undead as evil may be independent of the fact that it's only something evil characters do. It's entirely possible for both PCs and NPCs to regard their objectively evil person-hood as morally good. In D&D they're wrong about that, but that's not going to matter much in terms of in-game consequences. After all, it's not really important if you burn in the fires of the Nine Hells or dissolve in acidic swamps in the Abyss until after the PC/NPC is dead.

Edit: okay not keeping up with the flow of posting this morning. :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Tanarii is referring to the fact creating Undead frequently is referred to as something only evil casters do in the books.

Also, I doubt any sane city, unless one ruled by Undead or their allies, would allow some random people to have an undead squad with them.

We're talking about a bunch of omnicidal, killing-obsessed evil monsters restrained only by a spell.

Yeah. All it takes is for someone to slip the caster a sleeping potion (thus preventing them from maintaining control in the morning) and there goes the neighborhood. If you park them outside the city, you're limited to places you can get to real quick (and probably extermination of the undead by anything that runs across them. Or general panics/witch hunts). Sustained, mass control is hard for non-villains.

My belief is that the spell was designed for more short-term use--create some from the first set of bodies you kill on a mission, use them until the mission ends, lay them to rest when you head back to town. Disposable trap-checkers and brute squad for the ethically compromised set, not a permanent army.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah. All it takes is for someone to slip the caster a sleeping potion (thus preventing them from maintaining control in the morning) and there goes the neighborhood.

Slipping a sleep potion? That's a fancy way of saying "caster drank too much booze".

Seriously, though, controlling a dozen of Undead is a good way to have to fight off a dozen of Undead the day you can't have your long rest.

[Malifice]

I didn't say that. I said only Necromancers (or other spellcasters) who are evil frequently create undead. This is RAW. Literally what's written in the rules, see PhoenixPhyre's quote of the PHB.

Players of non-evil PCs that choose to ignore this are ignoring their character's Alignment motivation. I mean, that's on the player for doing so. The only thing the DM is empowered to do about it would be:
1) Not grant said player inspiration for roleplaying.
2) Enforce in-game consequences for their actions.


Can you point me to this rule?

Just to be sure, in games you DM a mass murdering rapist Necromancer PC that has 'LG' written on his character sheet isnt burnt when he picks up a Talisman of Ultimate Good and can freely attune to it and use it? He goes to the Seven Heavens on death and not the Nine Hells? His healing spells are maximized in a Unicorns lair? He cant become an Oathbreaker paladin?

[Contrast]

If the player is taking care to keep undead minions well spaced out and behind cover what can a DM do to combat this without the player feeling picked on? If you obliterate the minions with broad sweeping uncounterable AoE, stop the player from disguising their horde to enter towns or reduce/minimize humanoid opponents for fresh corpses all of these factors can cripple the exact feature this player has chosen to capitalize on for their strength.

I would be intrigued to know how they're trivialising encounters (more than say...multiple castings of fireball which is what the wizard is giving up to enable this). AoE isn't raining on your PCs parade any more specifically than using ranged combatants and spellcasters picks on melee fighters. Its a normal and expected thing which they should plan for accordingly.

As others have said, I already think you're being too generous if you're letting them disguise them to go into town. If a group of 15 people, most of whom were lurching about and covered head to toe in clothing (and possibly smelling of rotten flesh) I probably would not immediately assume they were undead but I would assume they have some sort of virulent plague and run them out of town. Any sort of cursory inspection (even someone trying to talk to one of them) would probably immediately set alarm bells ringing and call the local guard. Much easier for the necromancer to just stick to skeletons and tell them to disassemble themselves before they get into town and store the bones away in a pack. At the bare minimum to get this to work I would expect Seeming to have been cast and even then its not going to work sometimes.

To put it another way - just because someone focused on enchantment spells I wouldn't have people not be pissed if they're aware the wizard keeps on charming them, not be mad at the conjurer after the thing he sold them vanished after an hour or not be suspicious of the weird things they're seeing in the company of a well known illusionist because it shuts down their specialisation. You make your choice in full knowledge when you choose you specialism.

I won't get into the argument about if necromancy is intrinsically evil as that's a setting question which is up to you but even if it doesn't make you automatically evil I would say it would usually make you very suspicious at best.

Also, I'd keep a watch on the 24 hours thing. Most of the time that will be fine. But it only takes one time where you woke up at 6 one day and refreshed the spell and then didn't start your long rest until midway through the night and suddenly you have a load of hostile undead in the middle of your camp who've just interrupted your long rest so you don't get the spell back to control them again :smalltongue: This of course falls into the category of things you should warn your player is possible so they can keep it in mind and shouldn't be something that's happening every other day.

[Citan]

Yeah. All it takes is for someone to slip the caster a sleeping potion (thus preventing them from maintaining control in the morning) and there goes the neighborhood. If you park them outside the city, you're limited to places you can get to real quick (and probably extermination of the undead by anything that runs across them. Or general panics/witch hunts). Sustained, mass control is hard for non-villains.

My belief is that the spell was designed for more short-term use--create some from the first set of bodies you kill on a mission, use them until the mission ends, lay them to rest when you head back to town. Disposable trap-checkers and brute squad for the ethically compromised set, not a permanent army.
Ok, this time I went to check the PHB before writing the post... :smallbiggrin:
And I don't see any reason why just because you are sleeping the undead would go wild and wreak havoc, unless those "someones" manage to put you under sleep right before (or keeping you asleep until after) the 24h limit per the previous casts.

Was it too obvious for you to write it specifically, or did I yet again miss something?

[Rhedyn]

Supposing a player has a handful of skeletal minions and/or zombies (A dozen is easy enough to accrue) and you want to preserve table integrity and avoid turn bloating. Even a level 6 necromancer can maintain this level of control easily thanks to arcane recovery and Animate Dead's re-cast efficiency but it trivializes deadly encounters and spotlight's a single player heavily.

If the player is taking care to keep undead minions well spaced out and behind cover what can a DM do to combat this without the player feeling picked on? If you obliterate the minions with broad sweeping uncounterable AoE, stop the player from disguising their horde to enter towns or reduce/minimize humanoid opponents for fresh corpses all of these factors can cripple the exact feature this player has chosen to capitalize on for their strength.


Having used mass-monster hit charts to accelerate and unbloat the player's turn seems to just make the DPR the only problem (especially if the wizard can blind the target). You have a PC who's shelling out 3-4x as much DPR on a consistent basis....

Thoughts? You could homebrew an undead monstrosity that becomes the single undead he brings into combat while the remaining undead are no longer buffed by class features and rebuked by the monstrosity.

That way he is still allowed to have his army, but the mono unit would be preferred in tactical situations.

I think the only way you solve your issue is with houserules. Either change the spell or change the class features.

EDIT: Oh God, the combative DMing advised is overflowing today. OP specifically asked how to handle this without punishing the player. Not bending over backwards to pretend the rules have no problems.

Also, animating other kinds of undead with a numbers limit may be another solution. You'll have to be selective about what undead he can control though.

[Tanarii]

Can you point me to this rule?Sure. Player's Handbook page 13*. Alignment is picked by the player:
"Using the information in chapter 4, you can flesh out your character’s physical appearance and personality traits. Choose your character’s alignment (the moral compass that guides his or her decisions) and ideals. Chapter 4 also helps you identify the things your character holds most dear, called bonds, and the flaws that could one day undermine him or her."


Just to be sure, in games you DM a mass murdering rapist Necromancer PC that has 'LG' written on his character sheet isnt burnt when he picks up a Talisman of Ultimate Good and can freely attune to it and use it? He goes to the Seven Heavens on death and not the Nine Hells? His healing spells are maximized in a Unicorns lair? He cant become an Oathbreaker paladin?No, that doesn't happen in games I DM, because like you I have house-rules for alignment.

The DM has no say over the Alignment the player picks and writes down, unless he's enforcing some (mostly optional) rules that specify Alignment change. And even those rules require player buy-in, the player to start using the new Alignment motivation. The only one of your questions that doesn't go off what Alignment the player has picked and written down on their character sheet is where the character goes after they die.

If you don't like that, you need to institute a house-rule, as you've so often made clear you do. Mine is "no evil characters, defined as no characters that behave consistently in a manner that matches any Evil typical alignment." So I do not have mass murdering rapist Necromancer PCs that write down LG on their character sheet. In effect, I have a house-rule that enforces paying attention to your Alignment motivation instead of ignoring it.

[PeteNutButter]

Characters built around raising and controlling the undead should be of evil alignment by nature. In this edition (as in all editions past), this is an intrinsic part of the default setting. DMs (and world-builders) can change this, but by default, a undead-minion-focused character should have an evil alignment. This doesn't mean the DM should force an alignment change, but does mean that good and undead don't go together without special dispensation.

While this is totally right according to the book... Does anyone else feel like it goes against the alignment structure as it has been developed over the past editions?

Using a dark power for a good cause, or a less than evil cause seems to fit squarely into the neutral territory for me. Fantasy fiction is ripe with characters using would-be "evil" abilities to do good or at least not evil. If anything it seems to me like raising the dead puts someone squarely in the chaotic spectrum as they are willing to break the norms and rules to get what they want done, whatever it may be.

I guess alignment is a shoddy and fickle system. It always has been.

EDIT: On a metaphysical level I could see that enslaving someone's spirit or soul is objectively evil, but with skeletons and zombies I understand it is just using the physical remains. No much different than a golem in that sense...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, this time I went to check the PHB before writing the post... :smallbiggrin:
And I don't see any reason why just because you are sleeping the undead would go wild and wreak havoc, unless those "someones" manage to put you under sleep right before (or keeping you asleep until after) the 24h limit per the previous casts.

Was it too obvious for you to write it specifically, or did I yet again miss something?

I was assuming that the caster renews control right after awakening (due to the need for lots of spell slots). That means that a short delay in getting up (or starting your long rest late) is a problem. Otherwise, you have to carry a bunch of spell slots around unused so you can maintain control at the right time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While this is totally right according to the book... Does anyone else feel like it goes against the alignment structure as it has been developed over the past editions?

Using a dark power for a good cause, or a less than evil cause seems to fit squarely into the neutral territory for me. Fantasy fiction is ripe with characters using would-be "evil" abilities to do good or at least not evil. If anything it seems to me like raising the dead puts someone squarely in the chaotic spectrum as they are willing to break the norms and rules to get what they want done, whatever it may be.

I guess alignment is a shoddy and fickle system. It always has been.

EDIT: On a metaphysical level I could see that enslaving someone's spirit or soul is objectively evil, but with skeletons and zombies I understand it is just using the physical remains. No much different than a golem in that sense...

In the default system, creating undead involves stuffing malign intelligences into bodies. The creatures thus created are inimical to all life everywhere. Claiming you're doing that "for a good cause" is questionable at best. The ends don't justify the means. A neutral person might justify it to themselves a couple times, but that's a pretty thin facade (just like summoning fiends isn't an act that a neutral person should find unobjectionable). Only an evil person would be happy doing it day-in and day-out.

[Tanarii]

I was assuming that the caster renews control right after awakening (due to the need for lots of spell slots). That means that a short delay in getting up (or starting your long rest late) is a problem. Otherwise, you have to carry a bunch of spell slots around unused so you can maintain control at the right time.Carrying around a bunch of spell slots unused to maintain control at the right time (right before a long rest) is the usual technique, the few times I've seen necro-minionmancy written out in threads. Of course, this requires doing the initial raising right before a long rest too.

But that makes perfect sense IMO. In the same way Druids cast Goodberry or various casters Create Water if they have spell slots left over. Or in preparation the day before an adventure.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Sure. Player's Handbook page 13*. Alignment is picked by the player:
"Using the information in chapter 4, you can flesh out your character’s physical appearance and personality traits. Choose your character’s alignment (the moral compass that guides his or her decisions) and ideals. Chapter 4 also helps you identify the things your character holds most dear, called bonds, and the flaws that could one day undermine him or her."

No, that doesn't happen in games I DM, because like you I have house-rules for alignment.

The DM has no say over the Alignment the player picks and writes down, unless he's enforcing some (mostly optional) rules that specify Alignment change. And even those rules require player buy-in, the player to start using the new Alignment motivation. The only one of your questions that doesn't go off what Alignment the player has picked and written down on their character sheet is where the character goes after they die.

If you don't like that, you need to institute a house-rule, as you've so often made clear you do. Mine is "no evil characters, defined as no characters that behave consistently in a manner that matches any Evil typical alignment." So I do not have mass murdering rapist Necromancer PCs that write down LG on their character sheet. In effect, I have a house-rule that enforces paying attention to your Alignment motivation instead of ignoring it.

Must be easy to not have to deal with Necromancers as a wizard subclass.

Anyway regardless of evil or not, the true subject at hand is the best way to balance but not punish the player. To that regard I say it's best if you

go over the rules for controlling undead again with the player, start using AoE with your Baddies, Counter his minion power with more Thug power, have the skeletons require upkeep or the fragile bones start breaking off etc after battles

[Tanarii]

Must be easy to not have to deal with Necromancers as a wizard subclass.Yah, it kinda is nice not to have to deal with full on Necro-minionmancy. :smallbiggrin: But I do have to deal with Animate Dead. Because non-evil casters can use it. Just not frequently. And there's a lot of wriggle room there.


Anyway regardless of evil or not, the true subject at hand is the best way to balance but not punish the player. To that regard I say it's best if you

go over the rules for controlling undead again with the player, start using AoE with your Baddies, Counter his minion power with more Thug power, have the skeletons require upkeep or the fragile bones start breaking off etc after battles
Yeah, my point on the evilness ended up being a moot point, as Citan managed to point out despite his forgetting that was a rule. Just because it's evil doesn't mean everyone thinks it's evil in-game. I mean, I'm assuming that's the default, but that's just an assumption on my part.

But the rules for controlling animated dead are the key point IMO. It shouldn't be possible for the PC to have the enemy undead perfectly take cover and attack in the same turn, even if they're all going to the same cover and all attacking the same target.

[Easy_Lee]

EDIT: Oh God, the combative DMing advised is overflowing today. OP specifically asked how to handle this without punishing the player. Not bending over backwards to pretend the rules have no problems.

I had the same reaction.

I shared a story about how powerful characters aren't always a problem at the table, then suggested how encounter variety can ensure the necromancer isn't always the best solution. Most of the other suggestions involve destroying the player's character concept.

I never got an answer to my question: is this a problem to all of the players, or just the DM? Sometimes, something bothering me doesn't bother anyone else. I don't take it upon myself to fix that one thing at the table and force the solution on everyone else. If you have a problem with something, but you're the only one, the easiest thing to change is yourself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I had the same reaction.

I shared a story about how powerful characters aren't always a problem at the table, then suggested how encounter variety can ensure the necromancer isn't always the best solution. Most of the other suggestions involve destroying the player's character concept.

I never got an answer to my question: is this a problem to all of the players, or just the DM? Sometimes, something bothering me doesn't bother anyone else. I don't take it upon myself to fix that one thing at the table and force the solution on everyone else. If you have a problem with something, but you're the only one, the easiest thing to change is yourself.

Not all character concepts play nicely with others, especially classic "evil" archetypes like necromancy. I consider the increased table time (focused on one player only) to be a cost in and of itself. People get bored real easily. In addition, it tends to cause setting problems (how are you dealing with townsfolk?) unless everyone is enthusiastically on board with an evil campaign. Of course, this would have been much better handled at session 0. That's when I give cautions to players who want to play minion-mancers of any type (summoned or undead).

Minion-mancy tends to be an all-or-nothing type of thing. Once an army of undead gets wiped out, re-establishing it takes a lot of resources (time and materials) that may or may not be available. Any combat where the undead army doesn't work well will tend to destroy the army. Thus, the strategy of exclusive minion-mancy, while very powerful, is very fragile. That's why I suggested giving home-brewed creations (stronger undead, but with number limits). That preserves the "I'm a necromancer" concept while both playing nice with table time and other characters (as well as generally being more manageable in general).

[Malifice]

Sure. Player's Handbook page 13*. Alignment is picked by the player:
"Using the information in chapter 4, you can flesh out your character’s physical appearance and personality traits. Choose your character’s alignment (the moral compass that guides his or her decisions) and ideals. Chapter 4 also helps you identify the things your character holds most dear, called bonds, and the flaws that could one day undermine him or her."

No, that doesn't happen in games I DM, because like you I have house-rules for alignment.

The DM has no say over the Alignment the player picks and writes down, unless he's enforcing some (mostly optional) rules that specify Alignment change. And even those rules require player buy-in, the player to start using the new Alignment motivation. The only one of your questions that doesn't go off what Alignment the player has picked and written down on their character sheet is where the character goes after they die.

If you don't like that, you need to institute a house-rule, as you've so often made clear you do. Mine is "no evil characters, defined as no characters that behave consistently in a manner that matches any Evil typical alignment." So I do not have mass murdering rapist Necromancer PCs that write down LG on their character sheet. In effect, I have a house-rule that enforces paying attention to your Alignment motivation instead of ignoring it.

Ah cool. So there is no such rule in the PHB that forbids the DM from changing a PCs alignment to match his behaviour.

Glad we agree.

[Tanarii]

Ah cool. So there is no such rule in the PHB that forbids the DM from changing a PCs alignment to match his behaviour.Yes. There is. It's the one that clearly states the player chooses their character Alignment. There is no general rule in the PHB or DMG that says the DM is free to force Alignment change, so there is no rule contradicting, putting any conditions, or otherwise putting it in the domain of the DM. Other than rule 0, which is always a rule.

So unless you mean "the DM is always welcome to institute house-rules for anything, even things that change the things written in the rule books" ...

[Aett_Thorn]

Yes. There is. It's the one that clearly states the player chooses their character Alignment. There is no rule in the PHB or DMG that says the DM is free to force Alignment change, so there is no rule contradicting, putting any conditions, or otherwise putting it in the domain of the DM. Other than rule 0, which is always a rule.

So unless you mean "the DM is always welcome to institute house-rules for anything, even things that change the things written in the rule books" ...

Well, I'd say that if the character has on their sheet that they are lawful good, but they love murdering innocents and don't like following rules, then the DM is well within his rights to change the alignment written on the sheet, or at least have everyone react to the character as if they were actually CE instead.

The player should chose the alignment that matches what their character actually does. Sure, there's some grey area as you interact with the world, but doing something that is clearly evil while calling yourself good is going to get you some strange looks.

[Easy_Lee]

Not all character concepts play nicely with others, especially classic "evil" archetypes like necromancy. I consider the increased table time (focused on one player only) to be a cost in and of itself. People get bored real easily. In addition, it tends to cause setting problems (how are you dealing with townsfolk?) unless everyone is enthusiastically on board with an evil campaign. Of course, this would have been much better handled at session 0. That's when I give cautions to players who want to play minion-mancers of any type (summoned or undead).

Minion-mancy tends to be an all-or-nothing type of thing. Once an army of undead gets wiped out, re-establishing it takes a lot of resources (time and materials) that may or may not be available. Any combat where the undead army doesn't work well will tend to destroy the army. Thus, the strategy of exclusive minion-mancy, while very powerful, is very fragile. That's why I suggested giving home-brewed creations (stronger undead, but with number limits). That preserves the "I'm a necromancer" concept while both playing nice with table time and other characters (as well as generally being more manageable in general).

Can't speak for others, but I don't have a problem with that. It's high risk, high reward. Minion characters work that way in all games, even fast paced games like DOTA.

If the player has to go find a graveyard during downtime and try to get his minions back, that's fine as long as it doesn't slow down the game for everyone else.

If you start changing necromancer to work more like a summoner or beast master, you risk encroaching on those characters' territory.

[Unoriginal]

OP specifically asked how to handle this without punishing the player. Not bending over backwards to pretend the rules have no problems.




Anyway regardless of evil or not, the true subject at hand is the best way to balance but not punish the player.

Applying the rules and realizing that some things won't work logically is NOT punishing the player.

As it was pointed out:

-Controlling 12 Undead (admitting it is possible at lvl 6) is pretty risky if they break out of your control

-Disguising 12 Undead and take them into a normal town would be difficult at best

-You control the Undead with your bonus action, so you can give 1 order each turn. If you want to give different orders to some of your Undead, you're going to need one turn per order

-A squad of 12 will not always be able to keep a distance between each others and to hide behind cover.


Animated Dead is a powerful spell, there is no reason to make it even more powerful by ignoring those points.

Though, I'm wondering how OP's player is getting 12 minions at their level.

[MrStabby]

Battlefield obstacles are a good way.

At mid to high level, mist step, flight etc. Solve a lot of problems. If you need to shuttle a load of unread across a chasm mid battle it can be a bit of a problem.

In a dungeon with Winding corridors, all alike where only one person can fight in a doorway and so on, weight of numbers of minions is pretty muted.

Naturally, a lot of the strenghts are just hard to bring to bear whereas the weaknesses are hard to avoid. Give them a time and a place to shine and let an organic campaign sort out the rest. If PCs make enemies they should be learning and tailoring their tactics to beat the party.

Away from book at the moment but if you dispel an animate dead that has been used to assert control over a skeleton or zombie, does it go feral? Will anti magic fields stop undead from being animated? Will they stop the animate dead spells that asserted control over the undead from working? I forget which were house rules.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think that the argument that AoE attacks are a valid tactic is very valid in high-op combat focused games. Perhaps an enemy spies on the party and learns their tactics, and preps for the skeletons.

However, if there is no plot reason for such tactics or the game isn't combat focused, I think the solution of discussing a compromise with the player is probably a better bet. I would also suggest a carrot for them and the team: The necromancer gets a necro-buddy with a boost to compensate for party make up. For instance, many groups are less tanky, and an AC boost isn't attention hogging and would mean that people don't need to worry about the necro-buddy getting overwhelmed and instead do their thing.

But perhaps other players should also get a similar boost, if the necromancer gets a singular undead companion? Perhaps loot or quests tailored to them will make them feel like they have the spotlight. A few monsters weak to their tactics might also help.

[TheUser]

To everyone wondering how a necromancer has 12 minions @6; re-asserting control of your minions costs 1 level 3 spell slot for up to 4 minions.

A level 6 necro can cast 3x a day and can still arcane recovery 1 extra slot.



Thanks for the feedback everyone. I think dialing back humanoids and reducing cover/creating bottlenecks is my best option at this point.

[90sMusic]

Just about anything you do to offset the power of these undead will make the player feel like you are picking on them because... That is exactly what you are doing: Looking for some way to artificially weaken them with some means you deem justifiable and excusable.

Here are things to consider:
1) YOU control the undead, not the necromancer. He can give them an order which is then taken LITERALLY by the minions and they carry it out without cause or concern to consequences or alignments, etc. They just do literally what they were told to do and that is your discretion as DM to decide how it interprets those commands. This not only removes a lot of the fine control the player has over them (which will at the very least make it a bit more difficult to keep them all in cover and in good positions while fighting) but it should also alleviate the feeling that the single player is hogging the spotlight because you will be the one controlling them all. It isn't much different than having a small group of hireling NPCs at the cost of many spell slots from a caster. Perspective and psychology play a big role here, as long as the actual player's turn isn't any longer than anyone else's and all the undead stuff happens from the DM, it'll make things feel less like he is a one man army because that is just how people's minds work.

2) To sustain that many minions, this necromancer is giving up a LOT of spell slots. He shouldn't be punished for using his spells to deal damage. And throwing a fireball at his minions to kill all of them at once is the equivalent of having a counterspell that doesn't just stop one spell, but destroys 5-6 spell slots for the day at the same time. He isn't going to be able to do much beyond the weak cantrips every round if he uses all of his slots on minions.

3) If it doesn't bother the other players, it shouldn't bother you. Don't project your own feelings and assumptions onto people. Just talk to them. If they don't have an issue with it, there's no reason you should either.

4) The player isn't doing anything wrong. He is playing his class in a perfectly legitimate manner that is supported by the rules. Especially if he is a necromancer school wizard, that is the entire point of his character and the theme of it. His best bonuses are there with the idea of using a bunch of undead in mind. Necromancer isn't some NPC-only school or class. He is following the rules.

5) As Benjin Stark once said "The dead don't rest". Those minions won't get long rests, they won't heal injuries. Any damage they sustain will persist unless healed through magical means (which the wizard cannot do). That means, in order to keep this army rolling, at least one healing-capable player will have to assist in it's maintenance. That in it's self also helps other players feel more involved in this and helps the feeling of it being "their" army instead of "his" army, when coupled with the DM controlling them instead of the player. When an undead is destroyed, it can't be re-raised.

6) Skeletons have **** accuracy. They only get a +4 to hit and that never changes. Enemies with 13 or higher AC will only be hit half the time and less with each AC above them. Those skeletons will need a 16 roll on the dice to hit someone in plate with a shield. So even if there are 12 of them, only about 2 of them on average are going to successfully hit the target with that much AC. Necromancy perks only increase the damage, not the accuracy, so the higher AC enemies your group fights the worse off those skeletons will become. Even when he gets as many as 20 minions, on average only about 3 of them will successfully hit a target with 20 AC. He will be using every spell slot he has to do 1d6+2 damage for each skeleton that actually hits, which won't be many. The damage is far greater using literally any other spell. And while skeletons have a small chance to deal this damage each round, I think you'll find if you actually stopped and added up the damage those skeletons were doing over the course of a day, you'd find it wasn't as high as any other wizard could've done if they had instead used the same spell slots to deal damage.

[jas61292]

You don't want to negate the feature, but you don't want it to steal the show either. So, in my opinion, you have to make sure you allow it to be successful without being too easy to always use. Perhaps the best way to do this, imo, is to make sure you actually target the undead and kill them sometimes, and then have plenty of combats where you face non - humanoid enemies, who cannot be used to make undead. And do not allow them to reanimate destroyed undead. Skeletons are a resource, so you should treat them as such. Don't make them impossible to get, but don't make them free either. They should care about keeping them "alive," and you should not make that aspect trivial.

Now that doesn't mean you should be shooting AoEs everywhere, but it also means you should not shy away from doing so when it makes sense.

[tieren]

Wait, why don't you want to punish necromancers?

They love that, its why they picked such an emo class in the first place.

[RickAllison]

I like the way OotS handled alignment discrepancies!

"You say you are LG, but you appear to have been quite the necromancer. Numerous skeletons following you daily. How do you justify that?"
"Every skeleton was willingly offered. Their families were paid handsomely, and the bones were returned when no longer needed."
"That is certainly Lawful, but does not seem Good."
"We are not defined by one aspect of our lives. I minimized any Evil associated with the practice and used the skeletons to advance the cause of Good. It is Neutral at the worst, and the rest of my life was solidly in the Good end of the spectrum."

Now Malifice's straw-man example is not going to fare so well to such examinations. Nor is anyone using Finger of Death, as that one is much more binding and the only way to gain permission is to also do so to kill them.

[Strangways]

To everyone wondering how a necromancer has 12 minions @6; re-asserting control of your minions costs 1 level 3 spell slot for up to 4 minions.

A level 6 necro can cast 3x a day and can still arcane recovery 1 extra slot.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I think dialing back humanoids and reducing cover/creating bottlenecks is my best option at this point.

I played that necromancer! I don't really think there's anything there that needs to be nerfed because the necromancer's high damage output applies only in limited circumstances, and comes at a high cost.

First, the damage: I went with a whole bunch of skeleton archers (no zombies) and, yes, in a wide open area, 10 or 15 skeleton archers, all firing simultaneously at the same target, will result in massive damage, every round.

I avoided overwhelming the action economy just by rolling all the attack rolls at once. So if I had 12 skeletons firing, I'd just roll 12 d20s at once, count up the number of hits, and then roll that many damage dice. So it's not much different than rolling an attack for just one minion. Of course, this doesn't work if the skeletons have advantage or disadvantage, but fortunately that's a rare situation.

But it's not all upside. Note the limit on controlling them - issuing an order to them costs a bonus action, so you can't order them all to go off and do different things at once. In nearly all cases, this mean that I'd just order them to focus fire a single target until it was dead. There's also a 60' range limit on issuing commands, so if they're more widely dispersed than a 60' radius, you can't control the ones outside that radius. A further problem is that many skeletons cannot fit into the narrow confines of many indoor environments, or can only do so in a long, single-file formation that will leave some of them out of the range of the target.

And as others have pointed out, the skeletons are quite fragile, and highly susceptible to being blow away on round 1 by an AoE spell caster who wins the initiative roll.

It also costs the necromancer his spell slots to maintain control of his undead minions, a huge horde of them means very few spell slots left over for spell casting.

So your worst case scenario for a necromancer is a complete disaster - he's spent all his level 3+ slots on summoning and controlling an army, he loses the initiative against sorcerer or wizard, who blows his army away on round 1 with a well-placed AoE, leaving the necromancer with no minions (or very few if some of them survive) and no spell slots. He's down to level 1 and 2 slots, and cantrips.

So, while the necromancer's damage output can be very high in certain circumstances, it can also be pitifully weak in other circumstances, and he can't be sure from one encounter to the next whether it will be one or the other. It's not punishing the necromancer to have his skeletons eat a fireball or two - any wizard with half a brain (and they all have brains) would realize the threat they pose and how to deal with them.

Finally, how do you get around with a bunch of skeleton minions without freaking out the townspeople, other than just waiting outside town while your allies took care of the social stuff? Once you get the Seeming spell it's easy - you can make them look like your human servants. But that's a fairly high level spell so it will be quite a while before you can cast it. Until then, what my necromancer did was pile the skeletons on a Tenser's Floating Disc (later a wagon), ordered them to play dead, covered them up with a tarp and, if anyone asked, I told them I was a traveling undertaker or archaeologist.

[Twizzly513]

In my experience as a DM, the antagonists should be using an amount of tactics that the players do.

If this necromancer player is using intelligent tactics, have their enemies do so as well. Have enemies flank, or have enemies that are prepared for the players in an ambush. Having many minions is useful, but it makes the player vulnerable. Have some enemies using similar tactics (spells/bows, cover) targeting the caster. If they make themselves such a big combat presence, it's only logical. Don't be afraid to make things like fresh bodies hard to obtain. The truth is they are. It's difficult to maintain an undead squad.

If it were my campaign, my strategy would be for some church to take note of the goings-on with this necromancer. Have them harass the party. Start out with some public denouncing. Maybe then some sneaky ambushes outside of town. After a while, as the undead group grows, possibly the clerics and paladins of the church begin to personally hunt them down. This would be even more complicated for a good-aligned campaign.

BIG THING:
You cannot have the necromancer making individual moves for their skeletons. They can give a mental command as a bonus action, and you decide how this happens. Note that with this one command, fine control cannot be maintained, and only one group can be commanded at once. Commands can be complex, but keep in mind that skeletons have an Intelligence of 6 and are not the best decision-makers. They are better than zombies, but still cannot be counted on to always do things right - especially if commands are vague. These are the biggest weaknesses of the necromancer.

[Mortis_Elrod]

BIG THING:
You cannot have the necromancer making individual moves for their skeletons. They can give a mental command as a bonus action, and you decide how this happens. Note that with this one command, fine control cannot be maintained, and only one group can be commanded at once. Commands can be complex, but keep in mind that skeletons have an Intelligence of 6 and are not the best decision-makers. They are better than zombies, but still cannot be counted on to always do things right - especially if commands are vague. These are the biggest weaknesses of the necromancer.

I mean, Int 6 is the same as a Found Steed. try to tell a paladin his horse is dumb and he'll tell you how its smarter than him.

[Malifice]

Yes. There is. It's the one that clearly states the player chooses their character Alignment.

I'm not saying 'choosing alignment'. I'm saying playing alignment.

Can you find me the rule that prohibits the DM from changing the players alignment to what he is actually playing.

Also can you find me the rule that allows a PC to choose to play a Barbarian, write Barbarian on his character sheet, but during play, walk around casting spells like a Wizard, have Wizard class features and no Barbarian class features?

Or is the DM empowered in the latter case to say 'Actually Steve, you're playing a Wizard; not a Barbarian. You (and your character) can call it what you want, but that's what you are'?

Note I am not saying the DM can mess with a players agency here. I dont agree you should ever say 'You're good aligned, so you cant murder and torture that NPC.' I say 'You can murder and torture that NPC, but you will no longer be good aligned if you do so. Objectively speaking.'

The player is then the one making the choice. Do the act (and change alignment, reflective of his characters evil) or dont do the act.

[Malifice]

I like the way OotS handled alignment discrepancies!

"You say you are LG, but you appear to have been quite the necromancer. Numerous skeletons following you daily. How do you justify that?"
"Every skeleton was willingly offered. Their families were paid handsomely, and the bones were returned when no longer needed."
"That is certainly Lawful, but does not seem Good."
"We are not defined by one aspect of our lives. I minimized any Evil associated with the practice and used the skeletons to advance the cause of Good. It is Neutral at the worst, and the rest of my life was solidly in the Good end of the spectrum."

Of course an evil person would say that. No evil person says 'Yeah bro, Im EVAAAL!'

They justify their evil.

I paid their families (regardless of the pain it caused the families knowing their sister/ daughter is now the undead slave of a necromancer, who if uncontrolled mass murders all around her).

There is also the issue that creating the undead is forcing 'hateful evil spirits' into corpses, and 'using black magic' to 'make evil monsters that want to kill and murder'.

That isnt 'neutral at worst' simply because you use black magic to force evil hateful spirits into dead peoples bodies (you bought) to make them into evil monsters, and then turn them against other evildoers.

Any more than it's 'not evil' to torture, rape or murder an evil person. Its just as evil as if you did it to a good person. It might be an effective tool, but its evil nonetheless.

[Tanarii]

Let's drop Alignment in this thread. It's not particularly germaine to the main point the OP was asking about, and I made a mistake bringing it it up.

The point can be better made as: NPCs should react realistically to a Necromancer who (one assumes) creatures undead, in whatever form 'realistically' is defined in that specific campaign.

[Malifice]

The point can be better made as: NPCs should react realistically to a Necromancer who (one assumes) creatures undead, in whatever form 'realistically' is defined in that specific campaign.

Indeed. In Faerun and Greyhawk that's usually 'Kill on sight' barring the campaign being set in Thay or Menzoberanzan in Faerun or the Empire of Iuz in Greyhawk.

Cant remember the Scarlet Brotherhoods views on Necromancy. They do worship Wee-Jas as one of their main deities, and are human (specifically Suel ethnicity) supremacists so its a bit nebulous there as well.

Eberron its outlawed as well. The Elves practice a 'good' version that doesnt rely on black magic, trapping 'evil spirits' and 'creating murderous monsters'. Even they banish (at a minimum) actual necromancers.

Its outlawed (on death) anywhere on Krynn as well from memory. Cerillia as well for those Birthright fans. Pretty sure Mystara has it outlawed everywhere as well. Even 'evil' places in Mystara like Thyatis and the Black Eagle Barony outlaw it.

Home campaigns its entirely at the discretion of the DM of course.

[Kane0]

Our group just trades out for one minion of the same XP value as the mini-horde you’d usually control.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Our group just trades out for one minion of the same XP value as the mini-horde you’d usually control.

That's a fun idea. Gather minion horde to make necromantic monstrosities. I'd probably make that trade. Let's see what you can do with 12 skeletons....

Ah yes the Wight and Mummy, if sticking with undead. That seems about right.

[StoicLeaf]

RE: combative DM accusations.

It's BS.
These situations usually arise when a DM is confronted with a new situation, let's it run because the player's ought to have fun, after which it spirals out of control and, retrospectively, the situation can/could have been handled easily had the DM known the rules a little better. There is a difference between playing tactics and outright picking on the player. Adding a mage that preemptively attacks the group or uses tight bottle necks is an entirely different concept than the DM exclusively using 15x15 roomed dungeons for the rest of the campaign.

In regards to necro armies:
There are two sides to this. There's the RP side; being a necro isn't a good thing in faerun. The other players will likely not comment on it because meta-gaming, it's your job as the DM to rub his face in it when he openly demonstrates his necromantic tendencies.
The other side is mechanics. Bottlenecks and aoe are your friend. You cannot issue individual distinct orders per round. It's one order to x number of undead. You need corpses to raise the dead, is he pilfering graveyards (RP opportunity!). You cannot easily disguise undead at 6th level. seeming is a 5th level spell, the necro is unlikely to have it. Harass the players so that they do not get a full rest. The necro can now not keep the control up (more great RP opportunities!).

My advice is the same as in the polymorph thread.
Use the DM tools you have at your disposal. Depending on how childish and butthurt your necromancer player is going to be about this, you might need to talk to them out of the game first.

[Malifice]

RE: combative DM accusations.

It's BS.
These situations usually arise when a DM is confronted with a new situation, let's it run because the player's ought to have fun, after which it spirals out of control and, retrospectively, the situation can/could have been handled easily had the DM known the rules a little better. There is a difference between playing tactics and outright picking on the player. Adding a mage that preemptively attacks the group or uses tight bottle necks is an entirely different concept than the DM exclusively using 15x15 roomed dungeons for the rest of the campaign.

In regards to necro armies:
There are two sides to this. There's the RP side; being a necro isn't a good thing in faerun. The other players will likely not comment on it because meta-gaming, it's your job as the DM to rub his face in it when he openly demonstrates his necromantic tendencies.
The other side is mechanics. Bottlenecks and aoe are your friend. You cannot issue individual distinct orders per round. It's one order to x number of undead. You need corpses to raise the dead, is he pilfering graveyards (RP opportunity!). You cannot easily disguise undead at 6th level. seeming is a 5th level spell, the necro is unlikely to have it. Harass the players so that they do not get a full rest. The necro can now not keep the control up (more great RP opportunities!).

My advice is the same as in the polymorph thread.
Use the DM tools you have at your disposal. Depending on how childish and butthurt your necromancer player is going to be about this, you might need to talk to them out of the game first.

Why wouldn't the players comment on it?

If it's universally considered evil and outlawed (including a mortal sin in most faiths) you would presume they would have a lot to say to the necromancer in the party.

Including 'leave'.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Why wouldn't the players comment on it?

If it's universally considered evil and outlawed (including a mortal sin in most faiths) you would presume they would have a lot to say to the necromancer in the party.

Including 'leave'.

I say welcome aboard. Maybe my group is different but we rarely just disregard a perfectly playable character because "seems evil". But I mean I also play in campaigns where being evil doesn't matter (like how it should be honestly) as long as there is party cohesion. I think someone said this utilitarian ? Seems legit since I'm playing a game which is where meta gaming comment about it comes into play I think..

[Joe the Rat]

I had to deal with this issue. Except it was elven archers insteaed of skeletons.

Yes, the fellow in charge of them was doing more collective damage, insofar as the thing he was ordering to happen happened.
I used the grouping damage approach - one automatic hit per N attackers who need a roll of x to hit AC y. Put together a short table with the ACs needed to hit once for groupings of 2-however many. Also make sure to have him restock ammunition - and remembering to order them to retrieve spent ammo after fights. Skeletons do not take initiative. Mechanically, this reduces the minions to an automatic DPR. Which is a fair use of his top tier spells.

Another approach I'd been working on is scaling up Swarms. I didn't get very far on swarms of humanoids, but I did get a Swarm of Crawling Claws statblock out of the process.

On disguising and civilizations: Get a wagon. Have them lay down, and cover them with straw/tarp/a crate. They don't move unless ordered, so they should stay put and out of the way. If you want to use them en masse in town... That's going to raise a lot of suspicion. Better to have one or two heavily cloaked and hooded acting like hired guards. Simply put, you need to store them somewhere when not in use, but it might not be convenient in towns.

The fun sort of trouble: Give one of the undead a quirk or personality - enough to be useful as a roleplay foil. While idling, one of the skeletons starts playing songs using his ribs like a xylophone (Ossophone?). One of your minions has grown attached to a party member, and stands a little too close whenever they aren't doing something. While the rest go about their tasks with nary a response, one of them visibly sighs before trudging off.

Our resident Necromancer had a goblin henchman named Bob, who he poisoned with an insane amount of arsenic to help preserve the corpse. Then he animated him. ZomBob was surprisingly lifelike other than the vacant stares, the stiff movement, and the lack of breathing. But he also was a bit bitey. In noncombat situations, he would interpret any command given to include biting someone, if possible. Or not possible.

Server: "Your buddy isn't eating"
Necro: (offers ZomBob an apple) "Bob, take a bite"
(ZomBob bites Server)
"No! Bad Bob! Eat the food"
(ZomBob tries to bite the server again)
"Stop! Bad Bob! Bite the a- he's gonna go for the throat if I say 'apple', isn't he?"
etc.

But we do play for laughs.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I had to deal with this issue. Except it was elven archers insteaed of skeletons.

Yes, the fellow in charge of them was doing more collective damage, insofar as the thing he was ordering to happen happened.
I used the grouping damage approach - one automatic hit per N attackers who need a roll of x to hit AC y. Put together a short table with the ACs needed to hit once for groupings of 2-however many. Also make sure to have him restock ammunition - and remembering to order them to retrieve spent ammo after fights. Skeletons do not take initiative. Mechanically, this reduces the minions to an automatic DPR. Which is a fair use of his top tier spells.

Another approach I'd been working on is scaling up Swarms. I didn't get very far on swarms of humanoids, but I did get a Swarm of Crawling Claws statblock out of the process.

On disguising and civilizations: Get a wagon. Have them lay down, and cover them with straw/tarp/a crate. They don't move unless ordered, so they should stay put and out of the way. If you want to use them en masse in town... That's going to raise a lot of suspicion. Better to have one or two heavily cloaked and hooded acting like hired guards. Simply put, you need to store them somewhere when not in use, but it might not be convenient in towns.

The fun sort of trouble: Give one of the undead a quirk or personality - enough to be useful as a roleplay foil. While idling, one of the skeletons starts playing songs using his ribs like a xylophone (Ossophone?). One of your minions has grown attached to a party member, and stands a little too close whenever they aren't doing something. While the rest go about their tasks with nary a response, one of them visibly sighs before trudging off.

Our resident Necromancer had a goblin henchman named Bob, who he poisoned with an insane amount of arsenic to help preserve the corpse. Then he animated him. ZomBob was surprisingly lifelike other than the vacant stares, the stiff movement, and the lack of breathing. But he also was a bit bitey. In noncombat situations, he would interpret any command given to include biting someone, if possible. Or not possible.

Server: "Your buddy isn't eating"
Necro: (offers ZomBob an apple) "Bob, take a bite"
(ZomBob bites Server)
"No! Bad Bob! Eat the food"
(ZomBob tries to bite the server again)
"Stop! Bad Bob! Bite the a- he's gonna go for the throat if I say 'apple', isn't he?"
etc.

But we do play for laughs.

This is great necromancing at its finest.

What do you call a swarm of crawling claws? A Handful? A Ravage? A Grope? A funeral? A (Adams) Family?

[Tanarii]

One of your minions has grown attached to a party member, and stands a little too close whenever they aren't doing something.
Hahahahaha im going to use this with a henchman some time. Won't be quite the same as a zombie, but it's still genius.

[Joe the Rat]

This is great necromancing at its finest.

What do you call a swarm of crawling claws? A Handful? A Ravage? A Grope? A funeral? A (Adams) Family?

Close on the last one. A Thing of Crawling Claws.

[Malifice]

I say welcome aboard. Maybe my group is different but we rarely just disregard a perfectly playable character because "seems evil".

Thats a conflict waiting to happen. Probably an insurmountable one.

I certainly cant see my NG Cleric of (Torm/ Tyr/ Selune/ Mystara) etc being at all comfortable with associating with a necromancer on any level.

Necromancy is (RAW) evil. Its also (in all campaign worlds Im aware of) taboo, unlawful (virtually everywhere, probably on pain of death), and in most religions, a mortal sin.

As DM I would sit down with the players before hand and explain the difficulties. Many parties (non evil ones) are going to have internal issues with a necromancer, and obviously there will also be external dramas (law enforcement, clerics and paladins coming after you, social stigma etc). Unless everyone was cool with this level of conflict, I'd veto the character.

Id do the same thing if I was running a mainly good party, and a PC wanted to bring in ANY evil PC concept (a torturer, rapist, murderer etc). It only happens if all players are on board with that as a concept, and players are open to losing characters (being exiled from the party for their evil, or being killed or betrayed by the evil PC, or having the evil of the PC stain the party).


But I mean I also play in campaigns where being evil doesn't matter (like how it should be honestly) as long as there is party cohesion.

I play in campagins where evil doesnt matter. But only if all players agree. From that point, player cohesion doesnt matter. Evil is as evil does. If the PCs are all evil, you expect betrayal, dog eat dog, and other evil things to happen.

If only one player isnt fine with that, no evil allowed (barring DM and player approval of a specific player concept, like an honorable LE knight, or a one off PC designed to become a NPC villian).

[Mortis_Elrod]

Thats a conflict waiting to happen. Probably an insurmountable one.

I certainly cant see my NG Cleric of (Torm/ Tyr/ Selune/ Mystara) etc being at all comfortable with associating with a necromancer on any level.

Necromancy is (RAW) evil. Its also (in all campaign worlds Im aware of) taboo, unlawful (virtually everywhere, probably on pain of death), and in most religions, a mortal sin.

As DM I would sit down with the players before hand and explain the difficulties. Many parties (non evil ones) are going to have internal issues with a necromancer, and obviously there will also be external dramas (law enforcement, clerics and paladins coming after you, social stigma etc). Unless everyone was cool with this level of conflict, I'd veto the character.

Id do the same thing if I was running a mainly good party, and a PC wanted to bring in ANY evil PC concept (a torturer, rapist, murderer etc). It only happens if all players are on board with that as a concept, and players are open to losing characters (being exiled from the party for their evil, or being killed or betrayed by the evil PC, or having the evil of the PC stain the party).



I play in campagins where evil doesnt matter. But only if all players agree. From that point, player cohesion doesnt matter. Evil is as evil does. If the PCs are all evil, you expect betrayal, dog eat dog, and other evil things to happen.

If only one player isnt fine with that, no evil allowed (barring DM and player approval of a specific player concept, like an honorable LE knight, or a one off PC designed to become a NPC villian).

The issue i have with the idea of vetoing a Necromancer because evil is that its supposed to be a player option. The whole Tradition of Necromancy should be usable like any other subclass. If the game was meant to be played without the option it probably wouldn't have it listed in the phb. Seems to me like all Wizards who study necromancy are banned for nothing in alot of campaigns. No other subclass has this issue and i hate that its a thing that people enforce.

[jas61292]

The issue i have with the idea of vetoing a Necromancer because evil is that its supposed to be a player option. The whole Tradition of Necromancy should be usable like any other subclass. If the game was meant to be played without the option it probably wouldn't have it listed in the phb. Seems to me like all Wizards who study necromancy are banned for nothing in alot of campaigns. No other subclass has this issue and i hate that its a thing that people enforce.

Personally, while I have no problem with saying undead stuff is evil, and directly or indirectly banning it for PCs, I do hate that Necromancy is often perceived as "undead magic," when there is so much more too it. I think people would be far more likely to accept Necromancy in general if the classes that specialize in it didn't specifically give bonuses to undead creation, and instead, say, focused on augmenting their damaging or debuffing spells, which are by far the most common type of necromancy spell.

[8wGremlin]

I remember when Cure wounds etc were Necromancy...

[BoxANT]

keep them at same initiative, and make it "one bonus action from wizard, makes one group attack".

Then roll all dice to hit, then damage.


Honestly doesn't take that long, comparable to the Animate Object spell (tiny).


Although, personally, I like keeping it to 4 skeletons (only 1 spell to maintain), and naming them. Even better if it is NPCs who have died.

[Tanarii]

The issue i have with the idea of vetoing a Necromancer because evil is that its supposed to be a player option. The whole Tradition of Necromancy should be usable like any other subclass. If the game was meant to be played without the option it probably wouldn't have it listed in the phb. Seems to me like all Wizards who study necromancy are banned for nothing in alot of campaigns. No other subclass has this issue and i hate that its a thing that people enforce.
Not all characters will fit with every campaign. That might be a Warlock in a campaign where Pacts are viewed with suspicioun, a Necromancer or other and blatantly Evil or even just selfish character in a party of (not-murder) heroes, or a Roderick-up-his-ass Devotion Paladin in a party of murderhobos. It might mean a Tiefling or Dragonborn or other race that will be viewed with outright hostility due to the campaign circumstances. It might even be Humans in a campaign where they're purity racists who have a central to the campaign empire founded on the subjegation & enslavement or even outright murder or non-humans.

That doesn't mean Necomancers and those kinds of Warlocks and other evil characters can't be appropriate in some campaigns, working together as a group of anti-heroes againt a greater evil. Or whatever. There's space in the possible campaign concepts out there for that.

Basically, not all campaigns have to be a 'select any race, class, alignment, etc you want' grab-bag.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Not all characters will fit with every campaign. That might be a Warlock in a campaign where Pacts are viewed with suspicioun, a Necromancer or other and blatantly Evil or even just selfish character in a party of (not-murder) heroes, or a Roderick-up-his-ass Devotion Paladin in a party of murderhobos. It might mean a Tiefling or Dragonborn or other race that will be viewed with outright hostility due to the campaign circumstances. It might even be Humans in a campaign where they're purity racists who have a central to the campaign empire founded on the subjegation & enslavement or even outright murder or non-humans.

That doesn't mean Necomancers and those kinds of Warlocks and other evil characters can't be appropriate in some campaigns, working together as a group of anti-heroes againt a greater evil. Or whatever. There's space in the possible campaign concepts out there for that.

Basically, not all campaigns have to be a 'select any race, class, alignment, etc you want' grab-bag.

My point was that Necromancer is the subclass that has the least acceptance in most settings. Of course not every class and race and what have you is gonna be accepted everywhere, but that doesn't mean the necromancer has just as many chances to be played as a life cleric, though they are both just as available options.

[Nifft]

Supposing a player has a handful of skeletal minions and/or zombies (A dozen is easy enough to accrue) and you want to preserve table integrity and avoid turn bloating. Even a level 6 necromancer can maintain this level of control easily thanks to arcane recovery and Animate Dead's re-cast efficiency but it trivializes deadly encounters and spotlight's a single player heavily.

If the player is taking care to keep undead minions well spaced out and behind cover what can a DM do to combat this without the player feeling picked on? If you obliterate the minions with broad sweeping uncounterable AoE, stop the player from disguising their horde to enter towns or reduce/minimize humanoid opponents for fresh corpses all of these factors can cripple the exact feature this player has chosen to capitalize on for their strength.


Having used mass-monster hit charts to accelerate and unbloat the player's turn seems to just make the DPR the only problem (especially if the wizard can blind the target). You have a PC who's shelling out 3-4x as much DPR on a consistent basis....

Thoughts?

Avoiding turn bloating / spotlight hogging: give away minions like you're some kind of Necromancer Oprah.

Let the other players each control some portion of the minions.

(This naturally divvies up the actions of the minions, too, so they don't all go on the same initiative.)

Spreading the attention-load across all players allows the Necromancer to do necromantic things yet not demand undue spotlight time.

Hopefully it also engenders goodwill among the other players, which will translate into not being witch-hunted and steak-burned when it turns out you're evil.

[Honest Tiefling]

It might mean a Tiefling...will be viewed with outright hostility due to the campaign circumstances.

'Might'? I would assume that outside of Planescape, this is the norm. And even then, people are aware of the nature of a tiefling, and might want to keep an eye on them...

But yes, just because it's a player option doesn't mean it's a player option for all games. The PHB lists Greyhawk and Eberron gods for a reason, and that reason is to run a multitude of different games. Sometimes evil doesn't work, just like how wizards might not work.

And I really dislike the idea that mortal enemies that have waged war for centuries will just lay down their weapons because that one is taking orders from a player. Oh, you torture the spirits of the innocent for a living? I guess I have to tolerate that, despite my oath to do the exact opposite! Especially divine casters, who have a very long history of death, dismemberment, torture, betrayal and all sorts of wholesome activities and a boss who might want some explanations as for their behavior.

The group should not turn away an evil character in an ideal world, because in an ideal world the group has reached consensus on what is appropriate for that game. But sometimes, comprimise means shelving a concept or two for the sake of everyone's fun.

However, I don't think using social constraints is the best way to reign the necromancer in. The issue is that the necromancer is getting the spotlight, and playing hide the skeleton is going to mean he's more integral to planning then anyone else because he's such a huge benefit or hindrance to out of combat stuff.

[Malifice]

The issue i have with the idea of vetoing a Necromancer because evil is that its supposed to be a player option.

Its not a blanket veto - there are some campaigns where its entirely appropriate.

Im running two campaigns at present. In the first its a good aligned party (including a LG Devotion Paladin/ Cleric of Torag) that is taking on Age of Worms run for 5E. Evil PCs arent really an option in that campaign, and a Necromancer certainly wouldnt fit.

In my other campaign, its an evil party that has a Necromancer (Death cleric of Myrkyl). He's just looted 'Nightcaller' magical whistle from The Sunless Citadel and is as happy as a pig in poo. He recently reanimated a deceased PC and already has an undead minion following him around.

Its just in some campaigns, certain concepts just dont work. You dont allow a LG Paladin of justice and a CE Death Cleric of Cyric in the same party.


The whole Tradition of Necromancy should be usable like any other subclass. If the game was meant to be played without the option it probably wouldn't have it listed in the phb. Seems to me like all Wizards who study necromancy are banned for nothing in alot of campaigns. No other subclass has this issue and i hate that its a thing that people enforce.

No-one is singling out Necromancers mate. In my evil campagin, a PC that wanted to play a LG Paladin faces the same issues (and likely veto). He just doesnt fit with the rest of the party.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Its not a blanket veto - there are some campaigns where its entirely appropriate.

Im running two campaigns at present. In the first its a good aligned party (including a LG Devotion Paladin/ Cleric of Torag) that is taking on Age of Worms run for 5E. Evil PCs arent really an option in that campaign, and a Necromancer certainly wouldnt fit.

In my other campaign, its an evil party that has a Necromancer (Death cleric of Myrkyl). He's just looted 'Nightcaller' magical whistle from The Sunless Citadel and is as happy as a pig in poo. He recently reanimated a deceased PC and already has an undead minion following him around.

Its just in some campaigns, certain concepts just dont work. You dont allow a LG Paladin of justice and a CE Death Cleric of Cyric in the same party.



No-one is singling out Necromancers mate. In my evil campagin, a PC that wanted to play a LG Paladin faces the same issues (and likely veto). He just doesnt fit with the rest of the party.

Okay but death clerics are even listed as 'Villainous' options unlike the wizard tradition. Did you not also mention that most settings just wouldn't tolerate Necromancy?

Maybe I'm wrong but when Necromancy pops up it sounds like alot of people say it shouldn't be played, before a setting is even mentioned that would ban such a thing. Like the general rule is that it isn't an option and is only an option in specific campaigns for it. Where with most if not all other sub classes its the opposite.

Anybody see what I'm saying or am I misreading things?

[Honest Tiefling]

Maybe I'm wrong but when Necromancy pops up it sounds like alot of people say it shouldn't be played, before a setting is even mentioned that would ban such a thing. Like the general rule is that it isn't an option and is only an option in specific campaigns for it. Where with most if not all other sub classes its the opposite.

Sorta...More like the necromancer isn't automatically banned, but there's a good chance it's just a bad idea overall in most well-known settings. So chances aren't good, but I doubt most people would ban it before the setting was decided. I mean, even in Faerun you could do a villianous group to punch Elminster in the goody sack.

I think a better way to think of it is that necromancer is usually a bad idea unless the lore supports non-evil necromancy or the group is evil or playing a bunch of anti-heroes. The campaign doesn't have to be specific as some settings will allow for non-evil necromancy. It's not always auto-banned, but does require the right game and the right group.

Then again, a lot could be said of the druid or the enchanter. Druids in urban games might not do so hot unless the player and DM come to an agreement as to why this druid is hanging around nobles instead of nature. Enchanters can be used to stop violence with less then fun means, or they can be really scary people who strip the free will of others. And the latter probably doesn't work so great in a combat-oriented game.

[Malifice]

Okay but death clerics are even listed as 'Villainous' options unlike the wizard tradition. Did you not also mention that most settings just wouldn't tolerate Necromancy?

The player is well aware that Necromancy is a capital offence, and if caught he gets put to death.

Its no different from our Assasin PC. He's also aware that murder is a capital offence and if caught he gets put to death.


Maybe I'm wrong but when Necromancy pops up it sounds like alot of people say it shouldn't be played, before a setting is even mentioned that would ban such a thing. Like the general rule is that it isn't an option and is only an option in specific campaigns for it. Where with most if not all other sub classes its the opposite.

I dont see anyone saying that at all.

Its just Necromancy (or a class focussed on Necromancy) is going to come with baggage. Like how being a Paladin comes with baggage (your oath) or being a Cleric comes with baggage (your deity) or being a Warlock comes with baggage (your patron) etc.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Sorta...More like the necromancer isn't automatically banned, but there's a good chance it's just a bad idea overall in most well-known settings. So chances aren't good, but I doubt most people would ban it before the setting was decided. I mean, even in Faerun you could do a villianous group to punch Elminster in the goody sack.

I think a better way to think of it is that necromancer is usually a bad idea unless the lore supports non-evil necromancy or the group is evil or playing a bunch of anti-heroes. The campaign doesn't have to be specific as some settings will allow for non-evil necromancy. It's not always auto-banned, but does require the right game and the right group.

Then again, a lot could be said of the druid or the enchanter. Druids in urban games might not do so hot unless the player and DM come to an agreement as to why this druid is hanging around nobles instead of nature. Enchanters can be used to stop violence with less then fun means, or they can be really scary people who strip the free will of others. And the latter probably doesn't work so great in a combat-oriented game.

Listen if thats not targeting necromancers idk what is. "Heres a subclass you generally won't play because its a bad idea, UNLESS its a great idea because the campaign happens to allow it. "

Imagine a Life cleric having the same treatment. It be absurd. I'm just saying i don't like this, and in the campaigns i play thats not how things are, which is fortunate.

ON the Druid and Enchanter thing. I see what you're saying, but you'd probably not question a survey that pointed out that barely any DM thinks twice to allow druids or enchanters.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Its just Necromancy (or a class focussed on Necromancy) is going to come with baggage. Like how being a Paladin comes with baggage (your oath) or being a Cleric comes with baggage (your deity) or being a Warlock comes with baggage (your patron) etc.

yeah only all of those classes are beholden to things, either ideals or some other entity. Wizards are not that, Necromancy is a study when its a wizard tradition. Death clerics worship death, or death gods.

whats the Champion's baggage?

[Honest Tiefling]

Listen if thats not targeting necromancers idk what is.

It's not. It's limiting options based on lore, setting and consensus. It's not targeting anything, just some things tend to get the boot more often due to lore.

And yes, there are settings to limit the life cleric, one of which is called Dragonlance. It's not going to be as common, as the life cleric can function in many groups. However, if one were playing an evil group in Faerun, you'd have to limit the life cleric due to the fact that no evil god offers that domain. Well, unless everyone was a LE follower of Helm, but that's a pretty restrictive concept. I don't know Greyhawk as well, but I really doubt Ehlonna or Pelor are going to be any more accepting of evil then their Faerunian buddies.

[Mortis_Elrod]

It's not. It's limiting options based on lore, setting and consensus. It's not targeting anything, just some things tend to get the boot more often due to lore.

And yes, there are settings to limit the life cleric, one of which is called Dragonlance. It's not going to be as common, as the life cleric can function in many groups. However, if one were playing an evil group in Faerun, you'd have to limit the life cleric due to the fact that no evil god offers that domain. Well, unless everyone was a LE follower of Helm, but that's a pretty restrictive concept. I don't know Greyhawk as well, but I really doubt Ehlonna or Pelor are going to be any more accepting of evil then their Faerunian buddies.

I accept that there are settings that will limit anything and everything. What i don't like is the amount of settings that will do such things to necromancy as a player option versus other options. It makes Necromancer difficult to pick in scenarios where you may not know much of what the settings feeling towards it are, which if you go by the base assumption, not so good. Though i suppose this might be a session 0 issue.

Regardless I'd just prefer consistency, which is hard to get. Maybe I DM different. I usually adjust a setting to at least allow the existence of all player options unless i want to play a very specific setting out. My players don't always coordinate to each other what they play, so ive actually run a game with LG pallys mixing it up with Evil necromancers. I wouldn't ask either player to change their class. If they want to they could, but not required. How they RP this is almost always different except for one element. They still work with each other, usually within a gray professional area but still.

[Honest Tiefling]

I accept that there are settings that will limit anything and everything. What i don't like is the amount of settings that will do such things to necromancy as a player option versus other options. It makes Necromancer difficult to pick in scenarios where you may not know much of what the settings feeling towards it are, which if you go by the base assumption, not so good. Though i suppose this might be a session 0 issue.

Yes. If a player does not know if their concept is viable either with the world or the setting, that is 100% a failure of communication occurring at session 0.


Regardless I'd just prefer consistency, which is hard to get. Maybe I DM different. I usually adjust a setting to at least allow the existence of all player options unless i want to play a very specific setting out.

And that's the rub. I don't want consistency in the sense that all options on online at all times. I want enough options for everyone to get a class and role they'd be happy with and for the group to function, but I want uniqueness. I want to be told that druids don't exist in Darksun and that halflings are off the table. If we're playing against the forces of darkness, I'm okay with necromancy being an automatically evil act because of how a really developed afterlife works. I want to know that in Eberron I can't play Faerun-specific races. And yes, I'll avoid picking the tiefling race if the setting has no planar stuff or a source of magical corruption. And I want to know that everyone is working towards the same story, so I won't bring in an evil demon-worshipping assassin if the group are playing good aligned characters and there's no way to justify the inclusion, and vice versa for the good aligned paladin. Not everything needs to be available all of the time.

Just a difference in style. Doesn't make either one bad, so if it works for the OP's group to declare all necromancy evil or not, then that's what is working for them.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Yes. If a player does not know if their concept is viable either with the world or the setting, that is 100% a failure of communication occurring at session 0.



And that's the rub. I don't want consistency in the sense that all options on online at all times. I want enough options for everyone to get a class and role they'd be happy with and for the group to function, but I want uniqueness. I want to be told that druids don't exist in Darksun and that halflings are off the table. If we're playing against the forces of darkness, I'm okay with necromancy being an automatically evil act because of how a really developed afterlife works. I want to know that in Eberron I can't play Faerun-specific races. And yes, I'll avoid picking the tiefling race if the setting has no planar stuff or a source of magical corruption. And I want to know that everyone is working towards the same story, so I won't bring in an evil demon-worshipping assassin if the group are playing good aligned characters and there's no way to justify the inclusion, and vice versa for the good aligned paladin. Not everything needs to be available all of the time.

Just a difference in style. Doesn't make either one bad, so if it works for the OP's group to declare all necromancy evil or not, then that's what is working for them.

Ok i can see the appeal. I prefer not to limit my players unless its absolutely necessary though, just seems.......wrong. I like options and hate taking them away.

Stylistic differences it is then.

[djreynolds]

Is this a homebrew campaign?

If it is homebrew, any town has a cleric, guards, etc. Trash man

There are people living in town, there are animals, dogs and rats and mice and flies. Little kids getting into trouble

Something is going to alert the town guard, most people probably do not like the undead or undead infestations.

And as powerful as your necromancer and his party is, they are nor that powerful.

Its like in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and they're all getting arrested in the end of the movie

[Tanarii]

Ok i can see the appeal. I prefer not to limit my players unless its absolutely necessary though, just seems.......wrong. I like options and hate taking them away. Interesting, and to the point. As primarily a old school DM (which may or may not be the root cause), I definitely see the idea that all options should be available as ... Wrong. It's one of the reasons I'm neither a fan of AL, nor a fan of many races and classes being 'official'. Because there are many people who believe just because something is an official option, it should be on the table, as a general rule. And that changing that should be some kind of exception.

I do not accept that concept as the general rule. As far as I'm concerned, the general rule is: Any and all player options should be carefully vetted by the DM, before being specifically allowed. They are opt in, not opt out. I mean, call it house rules if you like, because they are the rules of that house, so it's accurate. But things like "no evil characters" or "no Paladins" or "no warlocks, assassins or Necromancers" or "no Rangers, Druids or barbarians" are totally appropriate, if the DM decides they are for that campaign.


Stylistic differences it is then.Indeed. And one that is a pain in the ass when a player sees things your way, and a DM mine. For both people involved. Especially when it's not made clear how it's going to be in advance, because both people assume their way is the default.

(Edit: I run into this same problem with feats and multiclassing, which I am incredibly glad WoTC decided to label 'optional' in this edition. And there are several other places in the rules that are specifically called out as DM makes the decision. IMO precisely because otherwise the players will assume they have a special right to decide. Notably, many, like conjure creatures, regularly draw ire from players who want to be assured their 'right' to all options.)

[Malifice]

whats the Champion's baggage?

Remarkable athlete.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Remarkable athlete.

Cmon man that's a feature not baggage.

[Rhedyn]

OP's question "How do you balance mid level Necromancers without punishing the player?"

Answer from people who somehow believe they aren't offering combative DMing advise: "There should be no necromancers in the party"

[Malifice]

OP's question "How do you balance mid level Necromancers without punishing the player?"

Answer from people who somehow believe they aren't offering combative DMing advise: "There should be no necromancers in the party"

How many gaming groups have you been kicked out of?

[Pex]

Interesting, and to the point. As primarily a old school DM (which may or may not be the root cause), I definitely see the idea that all options should be available as ... Wrong. It's one of the reasons I'm neither a fan of AL, nor a fan of many races and classes being 'official'. Because there are many people who believe just because something is an official option, it should be on the table, as a general rule. And that changing that should be some kind of exception.

I do not accept that concept as the general rule. As far as I'm concerned, the general rule is: Any and all player options should be carefully vetted by the DM, before being specifically allowed. They are opt in, not opt out. I mean, call it house rules if you like, because they are the rules of that house, so it's accurate. But things like "no evil characters" or "no Paladins" or "no warlocks, assassins or Necromancers" or "no Rangers, Druids or barbarians" are totally appropriate, if the DM decides they are for that campaign.

Indeed. And one that is a pain in the ass when a player sees things your way, and a DM mine. For both people involved. Especially when it's not made clear how it's going to be in advance, because both people assume their way is the default.

(Edit: I run into this same problem with feats and multiclassing, which I am incredibly glad WoTC decided to label 'optional' in this edition. And there are several other places in the rules that are specifically called out as DM makes the decision. IMO precisely because otherwise the players will assume they have a special right to decide. Notably, many, like conjure creatures, regularly draw ire from players who want to be assured their 'right' to all options.)

In case you were wondering :smallwink: I'm ok with this. I would choose not to play if I'm not liking the restrictions, but I recognize and accept the DM's prerogative to do this. In practice I've done it myself. Tieflings don't exist in my gameworld. I created the world before tieflings were even a thing and don't have a place to put them even when 3E made them available. I was barely able to find a place for dragonborn in my 5E conversion, allowing them to take the place of lizardmen and be a PC available race. I was reluctant because I'm not a fan of dragonborn existing as a concept, but I let that go. I've also opted out joining a game or two where conditions were not for me. No harm no foul.

[Rhedyn]

How many gaming groups have you been kicked out of?

Exactly 0

But I have been temp banned from online forums on the regular.

[Sigreid]

Tanarii is referring to the fact creating Undead frequently is referred to as something only evil casters do in the books.

Also, I doubt any sane city, unless one ruled by Undead or their allies, would allow some random people to have an undead squad with them.

We're talking about a bunch of omnicidal, killing-obsessed evil monsters restrained only by a spell.

There's always dressing them in concealing robes and telling people they are monks with a vow of silence. May not work in a big city but villages should be fine.

[Dudewithknives]

I have encountered this before, more than once actually.

A few things first.

1. You are directly trying to punish the player, do not try to sugar coat that.
2. Mid level necromancy is already balanced because they have to give up a spell slot, spend a decent amount of gold on equipment, and deal with keeping up with their own minion. I can guarantee that unless your battles take about 8 rounds each that their use of those 3/4 spell levels would have been better used on other spells.
3. "It is evil" is not remotely a reason to disallow something, if it was there would be no assassin rogues, their rogues, conquest paladins, or a few other subclasses. Creating sentient undead I can see being evil, but not creating mindless undead.

I played a necromancer with plenty of skeletons twice. Once was on a pirate campaign, they were cheap crew that did not require rest, food, or pay, they also never got sick, and as long as I cast a few spells a day, they never complained or attempted a mutiny.

I only encountered 3 times where it came up RP wise.

1. We entered a town where people looked at me funny and did not want to deal with me because I had a group of skeletons with me. Until I told them to go help in the fields, clean up the city, and do various other menial labors. When confronted over it, I just brought up that there is nothing evil about creating cheap labor. You would be surprised how quickly people change their mind when it helps them.

2. We had to deal with a paladin of some NG god. He pointed out that my necromancy was against his religion and was not going to help. I pointed out that his beliefs were also not the same as that of anyone who worships any of the dozens of other gods in the world, should we condemn his beliefs system because it does not align with others? If he was truly devoted to helping out the masses, then he should be ok with me doing the same thing but in different ways.

3. We came to a town where it was on the books that necromancy was illegal and punishable by imprisonment. I simply disassembled them all and put them in a bag of holding and went on my way. It is not like i was wearing a big glowing sign that said necromancer on it.

A necromancer CAN be evil, very easily, but they do not have to be. Alignment is based on actions and intentions, not character classes. Same with the idea that not all Paladins are LG anymore.
I don't see a note where assassin rogues are all evil.

[Tanarii]

As far as the OPs problem goes, there's already a quick fix to necromancy (Animate Dead) that doesn't require anything special: enforcing the RAW. The Necromancer gets to give one command to their undead every turn using their bonus action. Don't allow them to perfectly control the minutia of individual movement and selecting targets unless it's all reasonable within that single command. The easiest thing to do is make them state the command out loud before taking the undead minion's actions. That'll focus them and make sure the DM and player are on the same page as the actions are resolved.
(Moved the on topic portion of my post to the top)



In case you were wondering :smallwink: I'm ok with this. I would choose not to play if I'm not liking the restrictions, but I recognize and accept the DM's prerogative to do this. In practice I've done it myself. Tieflings don't exist in my gameworld. I created the world before tieflings were even a thing and don't have a place to put them even when 3E made them available. I was barely able to find a place for dragonborn in my 5E conversion, allowing them to take the place of lizardmen and be a PC available race. I was reluctant because I'm not a fan of dragonborn existing as a concept, but I let that go. I've also opted out joining a game or two where conditions were not for me. No harm no foul.
Yeah, that's the rub. The DM can session 0 what's allowed and not allowed, and proposed players can decide if they want to join or not. About the only time this doesn't work is if it's a group of friends who desire to get together to play, and one volunteers to be DM. Even then they should probably session 0 this stuff.

Anyway, this is all off topic. Necromancers clearly ARE allowed in the OPs campaign.



A necromancer CAN be evil, very easily, but they do not have to be. Alignment is based on actions and intentions, not character classes. The second sentence is wrong. In 5e, Alignment is based on the player selecting it, then using it as a motivation when making decisions for the character (aka roleplaying). It is not based on PC actions, nor PC intentions. Instead it should be considered part of the Pcs subconscious, so to speak, and be a portion of what RESULTS in PC general behavior and sometimes even specific actions. The PC's conscious intent may be something else entirely. The PC's stated morality may be something else entirely, for that matter.

And it's pretty hard to play a not evil Necromancer. Because only evil spell casters choose to create undead frequently. In other words, if you're Doing It Right(TM), according to RAW, if you play a non-evil Necromancer you will only choose to create undead infrequently. Obviously, the player and DM can choose to ignore this, as with anything RAW.

I mean, technically a player could choose to write LG on their character sheet and then choose to walk around psycho-murdering a everything and everyone, completely ignoring their Alignment motivation. Why anyone would want to do that is beyond me. Other than a complete failure to understand what roleplaying motivations of Alignment are there for. (I include this example because Malifice loves to use it.)

The necromancy one is a little more tricky than that, because many people think they can envision a way around the idea that only evil casters choose to frequently create undead. They can't accept a straight roleplaying rule that says "this is how it is".

[RickAllison]

The second sentence is wrong. In 5e, Alignment is based on the player selecting it, then using it as a motivation when making decisions for the character (aka roleplaying). It is not based on PC actions, nor PC intentions. Instead it should be considered part of the Pcs subconscious, so to speak, and be a portion of what RESULTS in PC general behavior and sometimes even specific actions. The PC's conscious intent may be something else entirely. The PC's stated morality may be something else entirely, for that matter.

And it's pretty hard to play a not evil Necromancer. Because only evil spell casters choose to create undead frequently. In other words, if you're Doing It Right(TM), according to RAW, if you play a non-evil Necromancer you will only choose to create undead infrequently. Obviously, the player and DM can choose to ignore this, as with anything RAW.

I mean, technically a player could choose to write LG on their character sheet and then choose to walk around psycho-murdering a everything and everyone, completely ignoring their Alignment motivation. Why anyone would want to do that is beyond me. Other than a complete failure to understand what roleplaying motivations of Alignment are there for. (I include this example because Malifice loves to use it.)

The necromancy one is a little more tricky than that, because many people think they can envision a way around the idea that only evil casters choose to frequently create undead. They can't accept a straight roleplaying rule that says "this is how it is".

I think a key aspect to the necromancy=Evil argument is the misreading of one particular line:


Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

And this makes sense. Creating the undead requires a body and a charge of negative energy just as all living people have a charge of positive energy. Negative energy is just as unaligned as negative energy, so that isn't a problem. Well, unless the undead get loose. Non-sentient beings (remembering that even creatures like animals are sentient) of either type instinctively hunt down the other, which poses a significant problem when just about everyone inhabiting the Material Plane is empowered by positive energy. This means that while having an undead destroyed isn't bad, leaving them somewhere is Evil. Requiring a body also provides an issue, as there are only a few ways to obtain a body: steal them, buy them, or have them given. Stealing them is Evil, and buying them or having them given with any coercion would be as well. This means that you need to either be able to provide sufficient coin or be in good enough favor to have it given, neither of which is likely to be cheap.

What this means is that once a necromancer that professes to be Good creates undead, they are obligated to either keep them under control or destroy them. Then replenishing the stock is either going to be Evil or expensive. This is why only Evil people can create undead frequently, because Evil necromancers can take the easy way out while anyone else has to have prodigious income to maintain their horde. Only Evil spellcasters use the spell often because it is a rare wizard that is wholeheartedly focused on animating the dead, that refuses to compromise being Good for the greater good, and that can afford to continue with the process. Note that this assumes desecrating the unclaimed dead to be Evil so you can't just animate hostile orcs, which I would assume is a pretty default assumption.

And there is no alignment argument for "infusing the corpse with evil spirits". That may be a common superstition by the commoners and it is how some undead are created, but not so for any of the creations that can be made with PC spells, and both the wizard and the gods would know this.